Hitchcock v TCN Channel 9 - [2000] NSWSC 198

Reported Decision: [2000] Aust Contract R 90-180
[2000] Aust Torts Reports 81-550

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: Hitchcock v TCN Channel 9 [2000] NSWSC 198

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 1773/00

HEARING DATE(S): 17 & 20 March 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 21 March 2000

PARTIES :

Shari-Lea Hitchcock (P)
TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (D)

JUDGMENT OF: Austin J

COUNSEL : T E F Hughes QC with B A Connell (P)
B McClintock SC with J Sleight (D)
G O'L Reynolds SC with N E Abadee (for Nationwide News Ltd, intervening)

SOLICITORS: Clayton Utz (P)
Gilbert & Tobin (D)

CATCHWORDS: EQUITY - injunction - inducing breach of contract - contractual stipulation prohibiting disclosure - whether television program should be enjoined after extensive newspaper publicity - whether injunction futile - EQUITY - interlocutory injunction - serious question to be tried - whether it is appropriate to determine questions of construction - EQUITY - breach of confidence - whether 'nanny' has equitable obligation not to disclose information about employer's private life - CONTRACT - construction - whether it is appropriate to correct the text outside proceedings for rectification.

CASES CITED: Attorney-General (NT) v Maurice (1987) 72 ALR 231
Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers Limited (No 2) [1988] 2 WLR 805
Chappell v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (1988) 14 NSWLR 153
Coco v A. N. Clark (Engineers) Ltd [1969] RPC 41
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority (1982) 149 CLR 347
Duchess of Argyll v Duke of Argyll [1967] 1 Ch 302
Fitzgerald v Masters (1956) 95 CLR 420
David Syme & Co Ltd v General Motors-Holden's Ltd [1984] 2 NSWLR 294
Kolback Securities Ltd v Epoch Mining NL (1987) 8 NSWLR 533
Lisciandro v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (1996) 139 ALR 689
Prenn v Simmonds [1971] 1 WLR 1381
Saltman Engineering Co Ltd v Campbell Engineering Co Ltd (1948) 65 RPC 203
Schering Chemicals Ltd v Falkman Ltd [1982] QB 1 at 28
Stephens v Avery [1988] 1 Ch 449
The Commonwealth of Australia v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1980) 147 CLR 39
Woodward v Hutchins [1977] 1WLR 760

DECISION: Limited interlocutory injunction granted

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

AUSTIN J

TUESDAY 21 MARCH 2000

1773/00 . SHARI-LEA HITCHCOCK V TCN CHANNEL NINE PTY LTD

JUDGMENT (Revised on 22 March 2000 to correct typographical errors)

1 HIS HONOUR: On Wednesday 15 March 2000 a news item appeared on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald under the heading ‘The billionaire, his lover, their nanny and her hush money’. The journalist reported that on the previous Thursday, Ms Julie Page had been paid a substantial amount of cash for withdrawing from proceedings in Waverley Local Court, in which she was the complainant seeking an apprehended violence order.

2 The newspaper article alleged that:
· the respondent to the local court proceedings was Shari-Lea Hitchcock, the plaintiff in the present proceedings;
· the plaintiff is the mistress of Mr Richard Pratt, a successful and…

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 Hitchcock v TCN Channel 9 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: [2000] NSWSC 198
Decision Date: 21 March 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hitchcock v TCN Channel 9 involved a dispute between the parties concerning the alleged inducement of a breach of contract and the disclosure of confidential information. The plaintiff, Hitchcock, sought an injunction to prevent the defendant, TCN Channel 9, from broadcasting a television program that allegedly contained information about her private life. The dispute was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. Firstly, whether an injunction should be granted to prevent the broadcast of the television program after extensive newspaper publicity. Secondly, whether an injunction would be futile in this context. Thirdly, whether it was appropriate to determine questions of construction in the context of an interlocutory injunction. Finally, whether Hitchcock had an equitable obligation not to disclose information about her employer's private life and whether it was appropriate to correct the text outside proceedings for rectification.

The court held that an injunction should not be granted to prevent the broadcast of the television program. The court found that the extensive newspaper publicity had already breached any confidentiality obligations that existed. The court also held that it was not appropriate to determine questions of construction in the context of an interlocutory injunction. The court found that the contractual stipulation prohibiting disclosure was clear and unambiguous and that Hitchcock had an equitable obligation not to disclose information about her employer's private life. However, the court held that it was not appropriate to correct the text outside proceedings for rectification.

The court ordered that the application for an interlocutory injunction be dismissed. The court found that the extensive newspaper publicity had already breached any confidentiality obligations that existed and that an injunction would be futile. The court also held that it was not appropriate to determine questions of construction in the context of an interlocutory injunction.

Orders