The defendants appealed a Master's decision finding they had partially waived solicitor-client privilege during an examination for discovery.
The underlying dispute involved whether the plaintiff was entitled to shares or stock options upon termination of employment.
During discovery, the individual defendant stated he had told others his lawyer 'botched' the documents.
The Master ruled this waived privilege over the instructions given to the lawyer.
The Superior Court allowed the appeal, holding that solicitor-client privilege is a substantive rule of law and that a partial waiver based on a discovery answer must be voluntary, informed, and clear.
The court found the defendants had not put their state of mind or reliance on legal advice in issue in their pleadings, and thus no implied or partial waiver occurred.
