Frank Wilson’s mate Graeme Scott gets access to supposedly damning Quintis legal opinion

One-time Quintis director Graeme Scott has won access to a damning legal opinion given while the forestry scheme flogger was in the doghouse four years ago.

The alleged defamation victim has beaten attempts by current Quintis management to place heavy restrictions on who can view the legal opinion purportedly scathing of Mr Scott’s old friend Frank Wilson.

The opinion was cited by Quintis directors and managers in their defence to a defamation action that Mr Scott launched last year over letters the company sent to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.

Mr Scott sued over claims he had engaged in dodgy dealings with Mr Wilson and that investors could suffer big losses if he was able to set up a new agricultural investment management company.

Mr Wilson was the boss of Quintis until he left in March 2018 while engineering a failed privatisation push. The company was in administration and receivership over 10 months in 2018.

Mr Scott, a director of Quintis in the 2000s, remained a supporter of Mr Wilson.

The current Quintis management pointed to this relationship in filing their defamation defence in February and cited parts of legal advice that was given by Allen Linklaters to Quintis’ receivers at McGrathNicol in 2018.

An access ruling published on Thursday by Justice Kenneth Martin reveals the current Quintis team claimed the Allens opinion identified potential market manipulation and insider trading claims against Mr Wilson.

When Mr Scott asked for access to the advice, they initially asserted legal professional privilege.

But the Quintis crew withdrew that claim in September and instead demanded heavy restrictions be placed on the document.

These included that it could only be viewed by Mr Scott’s barrister Robert Anderson and solicitor Jonelle Di Lena, and the alleged defamation victim could only be told in general terms about its contents.

Mr Scott’s legal team pushed for there to be no restriction on inspection of the legal advice beyond the normal rules governing document disclosure in litigation.

Ruling in Mr Scott’s favour, Justice Martin pointed to a High Court decision that found it conceptually wrong, unworkable and vague to restrict a solicitor to disclose the contents of advice in general terms.

Justice Martin said an existing legal obligation was duplicated by the Quintis crew’s request that Mr Scott only use the written advice for this litigation and for instructing his legal team on the case.

The legal opinion will likely be relied upon by the Quintis crew if the row proceeds to trial.

The Federal Court has not yet given a ruling on a civil prosecution of Mr Wilson for allegedly withholding bad news from the stock exchange in late 2016 and early 2017.