Article cautions against sharing legal advice between agencies.

The Full Federal Court's decision in Mastercard v ACCC establishes critical boundaries for legal professional privilege in regulatory disputes, examining when affidavit evidence about corporate purpose and strategy can trigger implied waiver. This case demonstrates how seemingly routine procedural steps in litigation can unexpectedly expose privileged communications to disclosure, with significant implications for how corporations manage evidence in regulatory investigations.

As ASIC continues to exercise its broad-ranging enforcement powers, companies are regularly asked to provide sensitive material to the regulator including documents covered by legal professional privilege.

This article is part of our Legal Professional Privilege in Australia series where our regulatory and disputes specialists have developed a suite of resources to provide practical guidance on common questions and scenarios when dealing with LPP in Australia.

The Full Federal Court of Australia has clarified resoundingly the law of privilege against self-incrimination and/or exposure to penalties (the Privilege) as it applies to partnerships.

The Federal Court in TerraCom Ltd v ASIC [2022] FCA 208 found that a company waived the legal professional privilege attaching to a report prepared by PwC in letter

The Federal Court decided TerraCom lost privilege over a PwC probe by telling shareholders the investigation absolved executives...

The privilege against self-incrimination remains an important protection for individuals in regulatory investigations.

The ACCC’s FAQ guidance released on 22 June 2026 sets out its expectations for the disclosure by private equity funds in applying for notification waivers under the new mandatory notification merger regime.

This article considers issues relevant to claims of legal professional privilege after an entity becomes deregistered?