British American Tobacco Australia Ltd v Gordon (No 3)

British American Tobacco Australia Ltd, the plaintiff, filed an application against Gordon, the defendant, seeking an injunction to prevent the use of confidential information provided by the plaintiff to its solicitors. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff argued that the defendant intended to use this confidential information to re-open an unsuccessful appeal to the Court of Appeal. The defendant claimed that the information revealed iniquity upon which they intended to rely, including a civil conspiracy between the plaintiff and others, and an argument of public policy against the claims based on contract. The court was tasked with determining whether the public interest defence was recognised and if the proposed pleading was adequately particularised.

The court examined whether the defence of public interest, which the defendant intended to rely upon, was a valid defence. The plaintiff argued that the defendant's use of confidential information was an abuse of process and that the defence of public policy was not applicable to the claims based on contract. The court had to decide if the defendant's proposed pleading, which included the conspiracy and public policy arguments, was sufficiently particularised to withstand the plaintiff's challenge.

In reaching its decision, the court found that the defence of public interest was not recognised in the circumstances of this case. The court further determined that the defendant's proposed pleading was not adequately particularised. The court held that the defendant's reliance on the confidential information was an abuse of process and that the proposed pleading did not meet the required standard of particularisation. Consequently, the court dismissed the defendant's application to deliver amended defences.

The court's final orders included a dismissal of the defendant's application to deliver amended defences and an injunction to prevent the use of the confidential information provided by the plaintiff to its solicitors. The court's decision emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity of the legal process and protecting confidential information from misuse.