Australia: Legal professional privilege and deregistered companies: who holds the right to claim?

Last Updated: 31 January 2017
Article by Ian Bloemendal

Although single judge decisions have found legal professional privilege in company material can survive a company's deregistration, it is possible (although perhaps unlikely) that a future appeal court might not.

Claims for legal professional privilege commonly arise while an entity is active, but what happens when the entity becomes deregistered? This article considers a number of relevant issues.

Does a company maintain legal professional privilege following deregistration?

A series of cases dating back over a century provide clear authority for the principle that claims for legal professional privilege (LPP) will generally endure for the benefit of a deceased individual's successors in title, who are usually the individual's personal representatives. As Lord Lindley observed in the case of Bullivant v A-G (Vic):

"The mere fact that a testator is dead does not destroy the privilege. The privilege is founded upon the views which are taken in this country of public policy ... and unless the people concerned ... waive it, the privilege is not gone — it remains.[1]

In the situation where a corporation ceases to exist2 however, there was little direct authority as to what happens to a company's right to claim privilege until the 1994 Federal Court decision of Lake Cumbeline Pty Ltd v Effem Foods Pty Ltd t/as Uncle Ben's of Australia3. In that case, Tamberlin J opined that the deregistration did not affect an existing valid claim for privilege and that "privilege subsists until it is waived by a person or entity competent and able to waive".[4]

As noted by Harrison AsJ in Kellert v Foate:

"The reason Tamberlin J upheld the claim for the company's legal professional privilege after it had been deregistered in Lake Cumbeline is that, "like other traditional common law rights [legal professional privilege] is not to be abolished or cut down otherwise than by clear statutory provision. Nor should it be narrowly constructed or artificially confined" (at [65] citing Deane J in Maurice at 41)[5]

The principle has been followed in subsequent single judge decisions,[6] providing useful precedent to support the principle that, provided there has been no loss of confidentiality and no prior waiver, LPP in a company's material will survive its deregistration.[7] This is relevant also to claims for joint privilege and common interest privilege.

Does the right to claim LPP pass to Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) following deregistration?

In Lake Cumbeline, Tamberlin J accepted the proposition that the claim for privilege in the relevant documents fell within section 576(1) of the then Corporations Law which referred to "all claims, rights and remedies" that the company or its liquidator had in respect of the company's property[8] He found that "under the provisions of the Corporations Law this privilege passed to the Commission [sic, ASIC's predecessor]"[9] which was the successor of the company in the matter. (In that case, the privilege was advanced as a "claim".)

However, unlike section 576(1) of the Corporations Law, the current provision in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) no longer refers to a vesting of all claims, rights and remedies with respect to a deregistered company's property. The effect of section 601AD of the Corporations Act is that once a company is deregistered:

  • all property held on trust immediately before deregistration vests in the Commonwealth;
  • all the company's property (other than property held by the company on trust) vests with ASIC;
  • the Commonwealth and ASIC take only the same property rights that the company itself had;
  • the Commonwealth has all the powers of an owner over property vested in it under subs 1A; and
  • ASIC has all the powers of an owner over property vested in it under subs 2.

In the writer's view, a privilege claim does not itself amount to "property" nor a chose in action that can be assigned.[10] Notwithstanding the question over what is now entailed by ASIC's "powers as owner", once it is established that a company's documents are privileged,[11]then the privilege claim ought not be lost until there is a waiver, express or implied, by a person or entity competent and able to do so.[12] The practical issue may, however, be this: who will be available to prove the claim?

In the 2015 case of Kellert v Foate, evidence was given to the effect in ASIC's policy, as of May 2015, that ASIC generally does not take possession of a deregistered company's books nor does it grant access to a deregistered company's books in another party's possession. This is because:

  • while ASIC may be vested with a company's books due to deregistration, it has no specific knowledge of their existence and the circumstances surrounding their creation
  • the documents may be the subject of [LPP] and it is not appropriate for ASIC to determine whether or not the nature of those documents is such as to attract the privilege
  • it is ASIC's policy to neither assert nor waive privilege on behalf of deregistered companies
  • other remedies are available and more appropriate (eg. service of a subpoena on the party in actual possession of the documents and/or reinstatement of a deregistered company).[13]

Since ASIC adopts a neutral position and will not agree to waive any existing claim for privilege (to the extent, if any, that it has power to do so,[14] it remains for an interested party to relevant proceedings to seek a court order to the effect that the documents sought do not attract LPP, or an order that the party in possession produce the documents to the applicant. However, where there is no loss of confidentiality or waiver of the company's claim for LPP, it will not be extinguished by the company's deregistration and an application for production is likely to be unsuccessful.

What are the risks of deregistration to common interest LPP?

An issue may arise where a company, prior to its deregistration, has provided another person with access to privileged material on the basis that it be protected by common interest privilege. This might arise, for example, between related companies.[15]

For common interest privilege to exist, the requisite degree of common interest must be established.[16] The test is whether there was a sufficiently common interest at the time the document was disclosed.[17] There is no need to have the same solicitor, although the existence of a confidentiality regime or agreement is an important factor. If the parties have a conflict of interest, common interest privilege cannot exist from the time the conflict arises.[18] Further, it cannot operate retrospectively once the privilege has been waived if that waiver occurs before the common interest arises.

Circumstances in which the claim for common interest privilege might not be upheld therefore include those where:

  • the finder of fact determines that a particular challenged document was not prepared for a dominant privileged purpose[19] or does not otherwise satisfy the test for a valid claim for legal professional privilege;
  • the person to whom the particular privileged document was provided does not establish a common interest with the company and the circumstances do not amount to a limited waiver;[20] or
  • the document never had or has lost the necessary element of confidentiality and a waiver of privilege had occurred.

The likelihood of a challenge to a privilege claim is likely to vary depending on the subject matter of the material. For example, where the subject matter of the material involves a dispute that has been resolved or settled, or advice in relation to a contract that with the passage of time and circumstances is no longer relevant, the practical likelihood of a challenge may be low. Alternatively, the risk of a challenge may by high if the subject matter of the material relates to an ongoing matter. Regardless, where privileged material is proposed to be shared, a company ought to, prior to disclosure and deregistration, act prudently and take careful steps designed to protect the confidentiality of the communication and minimise the risk of a successful challenge to a common interest privilege claim.

Joint privilege

Joint privilege[21] is similar to common interest privilege and arises where two or more parties (who have no conflict with each other):

  • communicate with the same legal adviser for the dominant purpose of retaining their services or obtaining their advice; or
  • when one of a group of persons in a formal legal relationship communicates with the legal adviser about a matter in which the members of the group share an interest.

Waiver of joint privilege requires the consent of all parties to whom the privilege belongs. While they cannot claim privilege against each, they can maintain privilege against the rest of the world.

Accordingly, the deregistration of one cannot give rise to a waiver of privilege as it requires the concurrence of the other.

Considering the issues

Whenever a company is to be deregistered, it is relevant to consider whether:

  • there are documents that may need to be retained — as opposed to vesting with ASIC;
  • appropriate measures have been put in place to protect the confidentiality associated with documents over which a privilege claim may be made; and
  • any person with the interest in retaining a copy of them has a sufficient common legal interest with the company.

If documents need to be retained, it is self-evident that they would not be retained by the company but be transferred to another person (presumably via a deed that transfers all claims, rights and remedies attaching to that material, in combination with the implementation of a policy to preserve the confidentiality that has attached to the transferred company material).

While property in the documents would be transferred, it is not entirely certain as to whether the company's claims for privilege would also be effectively assigned to the other person, such that it would be able to stand in the shoes of the company as the client and become the person competent to make or waive a privilege claim. This doubt arises from the nature of the privilege claim itself — as an immunity by the relevant client against the exercise of a power of compulsory production. Although the Lake Cumbeline case saw the court willing to find that vested "claims" included claims for LPP, it is worth noting that the case did not involve an assignment or transfer by deed or agreement, but rather arose by way of statute.

Prudence and good practice dictates that whenever copies of confidential and privileged communications are to be provided to a third party, there be:

  • an agreed record made of the circumstances giving rise to the common interest;
  • an adequate confidentiality regime;
  • an agreement not to do anything that could constitute a waiver of, or be inconsistent with the discloser's claim for, LPP in the disclosed communications;
  • an agreement not to use the privileged communications for any purposes other than the purpose in which each party has a common interest, including not using it to the current or potential competitive or legal disadvantage of the disclosing party or any related body corporate of the disclosing party; and
  • a statement that by providing the communications, there is no waiver or intention to waive privilege in them.

If an assignment of claims, rights and remedies was held not to include a claim for privilege with respect to the transferred property, then the recipient might face an argument that there has been an express waiver of privilege by the company subject to it establishing a common interest privilege or limited waiver, depending on the relevant facts. One expects that in those circumstances, the stronger the confidentiality regime and the less unfairness suffered by the person seeking production, the greater the prospect of a limited waiver arising which prevents the documents being handed over.

Key lessons for in-house counsel

  • According to single judge decisions at least, LPP in company material can survive its deregistration.
  • Although it is an eminently sensible application of the law of privilege and consistent with authorities involving deceased persons, it is possible (although perhaps unlikely) that a future appeal court or other single superior court judge might either reject or distinguish earlier authorities.
  • ASIC policy indicates that it will not agree to waive any claim for privilege in relation to property vested in it upon deregistration, to the extent it has the power to do so.
  • There nevertheless remains a practical need to lead adequate evidence to establish a privilege claim in circumstances where it is challenged. Consideration should be given as to how and through whom that might occur in the future.
  • Before a company to be deregistered shares any of its privileged material with persons who have a common interest in that material, steps should be taken to confirm the absence of a conflict of interest, the creation of an adequate confidentiality regime (with undertakings limiting its use) and a record of the common interest.
  • There may be occasion where a company wishes to transfer the ownership of records/documents that include privileged materials to a related entity. If so, it is unclear whether a deed that assigns all claims, rights and remedies will be effective to transfer a right to claim LPP in the name of the recipient. If the transferring entity is a government body, it would be preferable to have legislation passed that specifically provides for the statutory transfer of the company material together with a vesting of all claims, rights and remedies attaching to that material, including claims for privilege.

This article was first published in Inhouse Counsel, Vol 20, Nos 9-10, December 2016


[1] Bullivant v A–G (Vic) (1901) AC 196 at 206.

[2] Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 601AD(1); it provides that a company ceases to exist on deregistration.

[3] Lake Cumbeline Pty Ltd v Effem Foods Pty Ltd t/as Uncle Ben's of Australia.

[4] Above n 3, at 65.

[5] Kellert v Foate [2015] NSWSC 954 at [72].

[6] Cmr of the NSW Police Service [2005] NSWSC 901; Above n 5.

[7] Above n 3.

[8] Property" is defined as "any legal or equitable estate or interest ... in real or personal property of any description and includes a thing in action.

[9] Above n 3, at 65.

[10] See above n 6, at [13]–[16]. See also Commissioner of Taxation v Donoghue (2015) 237 FCR 316; [2015] FCAFC 183 where:

  • the true nature of common law privilege is described as an immunity (at [53]);
  • it notes that when privileged documents are disclosed to third parties, the right to restrain their use or to compel their return is grounded in equity rather than the common law of privilege (at [57]); and
  • the issue of privilege could only arise in the context of a power of compulsory production (at [76]).

[11] The person claiming privilege has the onus to show that the documents for which the claim is made are in fact privileged. It is insufficient to merely assert a claim for privilege or deliver an affidavit asserting the purpose for which a document was brought into existence followed by a statement about the category of legal professional privilege to which the document is said to belong: eg. see Barnes v Cmr of Taxation [2007] FCA 3; Re Southland Coal Pty Ltd (recs and mgrs apptd) (in liq) [2006] NSWSC 899; Re Doran Constructions Pty Ltd (in liq) (2002) 194 ALR 101 at 117 (Campbell J).

[12] Above n 3; Fletcher v Davidson (Fletcher) [2007] NSWSC 68; Above n 5.

[13] Above n 5, at [60].

[14] The accepted legal principle to start with is that the claim for privilege is that of the client and not of the custodian (above n 3; Fletcher, above n 12, at [30].

[15] Note, common interest privilege will not apply within group entities merely by reason of that relationship. Further, Australian case authorities do not recognise the relationship between a company and its shareholders, or the relationship between a company and its shareholder groups, as automatically attracting a common interest in the privileged communications of the company. Whether or not a common interest between those parties arises as a matter of fact, requires an assessment of the legal and commercial interests at each corporate layer of the corporate groups through which the privileged communications of the company are intended to flow, in order to be able to form a view as to whether those interests have a sufficient level of commonality with the company, and are not selfish or adverse to the company. It will always be a question of fact whether common interest privilege exists when group entities are related to a direct shareholder. If related entities have a common interest in the particular legal advice or the anticipated or actual legal proceedings that are on foot, then disclosure of privileged material between them on a confidential basis will not amount to a waiver.

[16] Eg. Network Ten Ltd v Capital Television Holdings Ltd (Network Ten) (1995) 36 NSWLR 275 at 279–80; Ampolex Ltd v Perpetual Trustee Co (Canberra) Ltd (1995) 37 NSWLR 405 at 409–10; Marshall v Prescott [2013] NSWCA 152.

[17] Rich v Harrington (2007) 245 ALR 106; [(2007) FCA 1987].

[18] Patrick v Capital Finance Corp (Australasia) Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1249: Tamberlin J considered the question as to whether common interest privilege could operate retrospectively over material on which privilege had previously been waived. He concluded that after a conflict of interest has clearly been identified, common interest privilege will not apply and it cannot operate retrospectively where the privilege in material had been waived. See also: Lee v South West Thames Regional Health Authority [1985] 2 All ER 385 ; [1985] 1 WLR 845; Leif Hoegh & Co A/S (No 2) v Petrolsea Inc (The World Era) [1993] 1 Lloyd's Rep 363. Cf: A presently existing common interest will not be destroyed by the circumstance that there is potential for future divergence of interests — see R Walker J "Nauru Phosphate Royalties Trust v Allen Allen & Hemsley" (1996) 13 Tolley's Professional Negligence 64 as noted in Marshall, above n 16, at [62].

[19] Ie. made or brought into existence for the dominant purpose of seeking or being furnished with legal advice or for the dominant purpose of preparing for existing or contemplated legal judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings.

[20] Network Ten, above n 16, at 300 where Giles J observed that Goldberg v Ng (1994) 33 NSWLR 639 underlines that there can be limited disclosure without relevant loss of legal professional privilege (eg. because of the limited and specific purpose and specific context of the disclosure or because there is no unfairness in maintaining the privilege).

[21] Farrow Mortgage Services Pty Ltd (in liq) v Webb (1996) 39 NSWLR 601 at 608 where Sheller JA explained the basis of joint legal professional privilege as follows:

"Two or more persons may join in communicating with a legal adviser for the purpose of retaining his or her services or obtaining his or her advice. The privilege which protects these communications from disclosure belongs to all the persons who joined in seeking the service or obtaining the advice. The privilege is a joint privilege. So is it also if one of a group of persons in a formal legal relationship communicates with a legal adviser about a matter in which the members of the group share an interest. Communications by one partner about the affairs of the partnership or a trustee about the affairs of the trust are examples. Implicit in the relationship is the duty or obligation to disclose to other parties thereto the content of the communication. Accordingly no privilege attaches to such communications as against others who, with the client, share an interest in the subject matter of communication. But the parties together are entitled to maintain the privilege "against the rest of the world": Phipson, par 20–28 and par 20–29. Logically the joint nature of the privilege means that all to whom it belongs must concur in waiving it. Theirs is one inseverable right."

See also Sheahan and Lock (Liquidators) Re Binqld Finances Pty Ltd (in Liq) (2015) 107 ACSR 163; [2015] FCA 718 at [9]; Archer Capital 4A Pty Ltd as Trustee for Archer Capital Trust 4A v Sage Group plc (No 3) (2013) 306 ALR 414; [2013] FCA 1160 at [68]; Asahi Holdings (Australia) Pty Ltd v Pacific Equity Partners Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 998 at [13]; Mercantile Mutual Insurance (NSW Workers Compensation) Ltd v Murray (2004) 13 ANZ Ins Cas 61–612 ; [2004] NSWCA 151 at [41]; Temwell Pty Ltd v DKGR Holdings Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 967 at [8] and [12]; Re Doran Constructions Pty Ltd (in liq) (2002) 168 FLR 116 at 132–33 [72]–[73]; and JD Heydon Cross on Evidence (10th edn) LexisNexis 2014 pp 905–6 [25265] and the cases referred to.

The Full Court in Alliance Craton Explorer Pty Ltd V Quasar Resources Pty Ltd [2011] SASCFC 64 held that in order to establish the second limb of joint privilege, the relationship between the group members must include a duty or obligation to disclose to the other members the content of the communication.

Clayton Utz communications are intended to provide commentary and general information. They should not be relied upon as legal advice. Formal legal advice should be sought in particular transactions or on matters of interest arising from this bulletin. Persons listed may not be admitted in all states and territories.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Sibenco Legal & Advisory
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Sibenco Legal & Advisory
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions