Haswell v Commonwealth of Australia

In the Federal Court of Australia, Haswell, a plaintiff, sought to use two documents in a class action against the Commonwealth, related but separate from earlier class actions. The dispute centred on the use of documents obtained by compulsory process for purposes other than the original proceeding. The court had to determine whether the parties were bound by an implied undertaking not to use the documents for collateral purposes. This involved examining the nature of the documents and the terms of the undertakings provided by the solicitors in the earlier proceedings.

The central legal issue was whether the parties were released from the implied undertakings once certain documents were tendered in evidence or formally read in open court. The court examined the principles in Hearne v Street, considering whether the information in question had become part of the public domain through these actions. The court noted that the toxicology report had been received into evidence and adopted as findings of the Court in the earlier class action, while the joint chemistry report had not been received into evidence but a summary of its reasoning had been disclosed.

The court concluded that the parties were released from the implied undertakings concerning the joint chemistry report and the adjectival information provided to the referee. This was because the information had either been received into evidence or formally read in open court, aligning with the principle that once such information is in the public domain, the undertakings are no longer binding. The court's decision was based on the premise that continuing maintenance of the undertaking was inconsistent with the information being publicly available.

The court ordered that the parties and their legal representatives were released from the obligations of the kind referred to in Hearne v Street with respect to the information contained in the joint chemistry report and the adjectival information provided to the referee. This order was necessary to clarify the legal position regarding the use of these documents in the new proceedings.