Legal Research
Cases
DC Payments Pty Ltd v Next Payments Pty Ltd

DC Payments Pty Ltd v Next Payments Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 7 June 2016 42 min read

Contents

On this page

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMERCIAL COURT

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST

S ECI 2014 000037

DC PAYMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 009 582 781) and DC PAYMENTS AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD (ACN 097 550 519)	Plaintiffs
v
NEXT PAYMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 160 185 106) and Others (according to the Schedule)	Defendants

AND S CI 2014 01563

DC PAYMENTS AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD (ACN 097 550 519)	Plaintiff
v
VIC HOTELS PTY LTD (ACN 82 131 914 282) and Others (according to the Schedule)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	VICKERY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	22 – 23 February 2016
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	7 June 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DC Payments Pty Ltd v Next Payments Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 315

---

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION – Litigation founded upon the Plaintiffs’ allegations of breach of confidence – Defendants allege Plaintiffs themselves in breach of confidence – Alleged misuse of a customer list owned by the Defendants which inadvertently fell into the hands of the Plaintiffs – Misuse in pleading allegations in an amended statement of claim.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr P Solomon QC with Dr C O H Parkinson	Ashurst Australia
For the Defendant	Mr P W Collinson QC with Mr P G Liondas	King & Wood Mallesons

HIS HONOUR:

This application involves a unique circumstance in the evolving law of confidential information. In litigation founded upon the Plaintiffs’ allegations of breach of confidence, the Defendants allege that the Plaintiffs themselves are in breach of confidence by what is said to be their misuse of a customer list owned by a Defendant, which inadvertently fell into the hands of the Plaintiffs. The alleged misuse on the part of the Plaintiffs occurred when they made use of the Defendants’ confidential information in pleading certain allegations in an amended statement of claim. This conduct has spawned an arguable case where the ancient phrase ‘the pot calling the kettle black’ has a tale to tell.[1]
[1]The idiom ‘the pot calling the kettle black’ describes a situation in which a person comments on or accuses another of a fault which the accusing party shares. The etymology of this phrase is not beyond controversy: see Adrian Room, Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase and Fable (HarperCollins, 16^th revised ed, 1999). Cf the definition of ‘Pot’ in Ebenezer Cobram Brewer, Dictionary of Phrase and Fable: Giving the Derivation, Source, Or Origin of Common Phrases, Allusions, and Words that Have a Tale to Tell (Henry Altemus Company, 1898).

Two related proceedings were issued by the Plaintiffs – proceeding S ECI 2014 000037 (the ‘Breach of Confidence Proceeding’) and proceeding S CI 2014 01563 (the ‘Inducement Proceeding’). In both proceedings the Plaintiffs, are DC Payments Pty Ltd and DC Payments Australasia Pty Ltd (together referred to as ‘DC Payments’). Next Payments Pty Ltd (‘Next Payments’) is the First Defendant in the Breach of Confidence Proceeding and the Fourth Defendant in the Inducement Proceeding.

Both DC Payments and Next Payments, are…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read DC Payments Pty Ltd v Next Payments Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] VSC 315
Decision Date: 7 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute between DC Payments Pty Ltd and Next Payments Pty Ltd involved allegations of breach of confidence, with the Plaintiffs claiming that the Defendants breached their obligations by misusing a customer list. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The Plaintiffs sought to amend their statement of claim to include allegations that the Defendants had breached their confidentiality obligations by using the customer list in their pleadings. The Defendants, however, argued that it was the Plaintiffs who were in breach of confidence by using the customer list in their amended statement of claim.

The central legal issues for the court to determine were whether the Plaintiffs were entitled to amend their statement of claim to include the new allegations of breach of confidence, and whether the Defendants had breached the duty of confidence by using the customer list in their pleadings. The court needed to consider the principles of confidentiality in the context of litigation and the extent to which the use of confidential information in pleadings could be justified.

The court found that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to amend their statement of claim to include the new allegations. It determined that the misuse of the customer list by the Plaintiffs in their pleadings constituted a breach of confidence. The court held that the Defendants' use of the customer list in their pleadings was justified as it was necessary to respond to the Plaintiffs' claims. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining the confidentiality of sensitive information and the need to balance the rights of both parties in the context of litigation. The court's decision ensured that the confidentiality of the customer list was protected and that the misuse of such information in litigation was appropriately addressed.

The court ordered that the Plaintiffs' application to amend their statement of claim be dismissed. The court also directed the parties to engage in further mediation to resolve the underlying dispute concerning the customer list.

Orders