Australian Leisure and Hospitality Group Pty Ltd v Dr Judith Stubbs

In the case of Australian Leisure and Hospitality Group Pty Ltd v Dr Judith Stubbs, the applicant sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain Dr Judith Stubbs from acting as an expert witness for the council in Land and Environment Court proceedings. The applicant had previously engaged Dr Stubbs to advise on a development application which was subsequently refused by the council. The applicant argued that Dr Stubbs should be restrained from acting as an expert witness against the development application due to the real and sensible possibility of misuse of confidential information. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the court included whether Dr Stubbs was bound by the same duty of confidentiality as a solicitor in relation to the information she obtained, and whether there was a real and sensible possibility of misuse of confidential information if she were to act as an expert witness for the council. The court considered whether the principles governing the duty of confidentiality owed by a solicitor to a client applied equally to an expert witness, and whether the applicant had established a real and sensible possibility of misuse of confidential information.

The court held that Dr Stubbs was bound by the same duty of confidentiality as a solicitor in relation to the information she obtained. The court found that the principles governing the duty of confidentiality owed by a solicitor to a client applied equally to an expert witness. The court also found that the applicant had established a real and sensible possibility of misuse of confidential information if Dr Stubbs were to act as an expert witness for the council. The court granted the interlocutory injunction, restraining Dr Stubbs from acting as an expert witness for the council in the Land and Environment Court proceedings.

The court ordered that Dr Judith Stubbs be restrained from acting as an expert witness for the council in the Land and Environment Court proceedings. The court further ordered that the applicant be entitled to costs of the application.