Commissioner of Police (NSW) v Ritson (No 6)

In *Commissioner of Police (NSW) v Ritson (No 6)*, Judge Cameron of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered an interim application by Mr Ritson. Mr Ritson sought leave to reopen his case to rely on specific evidence, including an affidavit, a second further bundle of documents, and a valuation document. Crucially, he also sought an order for the production of documents obtained from Optus Mobile Pty Limited in separate Queensland District Court proceedings, and leave to rely on those documents in the current proceedings.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether Mr Ritson should be granted leave to have the Court order him to produce documents that he had obtained from a third party under an implied undertaking of confidentiality to the Queensland District Court. Mr Ritson argued that these documents were significant to his claim and that he would be prejudiced if he could not rely on them. He also contended that if a subpoena had been issued to him for these documents, he would have been obliged to produce them.

Judge Cameron reasoned that the application for the Court to order Mr Ritson to produce documents that were already in his possession was an unorthodox approach. The Court identified that the underlying reason for this approach was Mr Ritson's obligation under an implied undertaking of confidentiality owed to the Queensland District Court regarding the Optus documents. While acknowledging that such an undertaking must yield to compulsory processes initiated by a third party, the Court distinguished this from a party seeking an order from a second court to circumvent an undertaking given to a first court. The Court held that the proper procedure would be to seek relief from the first court to be at liberty to use the documents in the second court, rather than seeking an order from the second court to escape the confidentiality undertaking. This would avoid a collateral attack on the implied undertaking and allow for appropriate scrutiny by the court that received the production.

Consequently, the Court ordered that Mr Ritson have leave to reopen his case to rely on his affidavit of 30 July 2021, the Second Further Bundle, and the valuation document. However, leave was refused for the relief sought concerning the production and reliance on the Optus documents. Mr Ritson was ordered to pay half of the applicant's costs of and incidental to the interim application.