Whether disclosure is tantamount to revealing the content of a privileged communication is a matter of degree. The mediocrity of authority suggests that at least one explicit or tacit summary of the subject requires legal advice. Where possible, the findings of the opinion cannot be sufficient «the substance of the evidence» without disclosure of the relevant facts and arguments ranging from those bases to conclusions. For example, in Fenwick/Wambo Coal Pty Ltd (No. 2), white J concluded above, after referring to the appropriate authorities, that a draft letter revealed the content of the legal advice, as it revealed its explanatory statement. His honour, for , seemed to regard the inclusion of the argument as decisive. The most interesting part of the case was the waiver and whether the limited disclosure of expertise to KBA (and other communications relating to counsel exchanged between the parties) had led to a tacit waiver to the rest of the world. A little insatiable, s 120 of the law protects against confidential communications in accordance with the tender and the contents of a confidential document when a party at the trial, who is not represented in the proceedings by a lawyer, makes objections. It was clearly considered that fairness should protect confidential communications made for the purpose of «preparing or executing the procedure.» Criminal judges who deal with unrepresented persons should be wise to draw the attention of this protection to the parties. In Ku-ring-gai Council v West (2017) 95 NSWLR 1;  NSWCA 54 considered a right to public interest immunity invoked on behalf of the NSW government. The appeal was filed as part of the proposed merger of local authorities. This was an opinion from KPMG that was to be submitted to the firm on the reforms proposed by local authorities. Production of less than 130 years had been refused at trial.
The majority of the court authorized the production on the grounds that it would have little impact on the «francness and openness» of the company preparing the report. The fact that it could do so was considered «fantastic». The public interest in the production of the material outweighed any notion of confidentiality or confidentiality. A company under investigation can, of course, derive considerable benefits from cooperation with the regulator or law enforcement authority – such as a more favourable resolution or a reduction in fines or penalties.1 Some regulators have proposed – although controversial – that the waiver of privileges is a strong indicator of cooperation.2 ASIC has encouraged the confidential disclosure of inside information and found that it can «help parties identify effectively, and accurately, critical issues that are addressed in an investigation» and that it «is often in the public interest of ASIC, in the performance of its regulatory duties, access to LPP equipment, and it will often not be detrimental to the privileged that this happens.» 3, Section 125, refers only to obtaining evidence. In the absence of a question of obtaining evidence and in the case of a request for access to documents submitted on summons, S 131A provides that the advertising obligations provided by Div 1 (customer law) apply to the presentation of documents pursuant to a subpoena: s 131 (2)a) Evidence Act; DPP vs. Stanizzo  NSWCA 12 to . However, regulators and law enforcement authorities around the world are increasingly pressuring companies to disclose documents that are subject to a right of privilege, either by carefully considering these claims or by requiring disclosure of information as a necessary condition for cooperation agreements or a deferred justice agreement.