Legal Research
Cases
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers v Persons Unknown

HWL Ebsworth Lawyers v Persons Unknown

Case [2024] NSWSC 71 12 February 2024

Intellectual Property Law

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: HWL Ebsworth Lawyers v Persons Unknown [2024] NSWSC 71
Hearing dates: 24 November 2023, 18 December 2023 last written submissions received, decided on the papers.
Date of orders: 12 February 2024
Decision date: 12 February 2024
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Slattery J
Decision:
Default judgment entered against the defendants described as unknown persons including orders for injunctive relief to restrain the defendants from dealing with the plaintiffs’ confidential information.

Catchwords:
EQUITY - Equitable remedies - Injunctions - Breach of confidence - Conduct constituting breach - restraining third parties from using confidential information - unidentified Internet hackers steal data from private databases controlled by the plaintiffs – the plaintiffs are partners conducting legal practice in a national law firm – plaintiffs filed proceedings by summons and are granted an interlocutory injunction against “persons unknown” – orders made to bring the summons and affidavits in support to the attention of the unknown actors who stole the data – the unknown actors do not appear – plaintiffs seek to enter default judgment against the unknown actors –– whether the data taken from the plaintiffs was identifiable, whether it had the necessary quality of confidence, whether it was received by the defendants in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence and whether there is actual or threatened misuse of the information.
CIVIL PROCEDURE — Parties — Joinder — Of defendants – whether default judgment can be entered against the defendants, described as persons unknown – whether the Court should grant injunctive relief against the defendants, described as persons unknown – what allowance should be made for the possibility that persons presently described as persons unknown may later be identified and further relief sought against them.

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 61(g)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, rr 11.4, 11.5, 11.8AA, 11.88AA, 16.1, 16.4-8, 16.10, 18.5,
Schedule 6

Cases Cited:
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Chen [2003] FCA 897
Australian Hardboards Ltd v Hudson Investment Group Ltd [2007] NSWCA 104
Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 552
Armstrong Watson LLP v Person(s) Unknown [2023] EWHC 1761 (KB)
Bloomsbury Publishing Group Ltd &Anor v News Group Newspapers Ltd &Ors [2003] EWHC 1205 (Ch)
CLM v CLN and Others [2022] SGHC 46
Corrs Pavey Whiting & Byrne v Collector of Customers (Vic) (1987) 14 FCR 434 at 443; [1987] FCA 266
Dandaloo Pty Ltd v Iali [2017] NSWSC 1738
Electricity Commission of New South Wales v Arrow (Unreported, NSW Sup Court, 7 December 1990) Hodgson J
Hutchinson v AD Securities America LLC [2021] NSWSC 1573
Jacek Gnych v Polish Club Limited [2016] NSWSC 987
Maritime Union of Australia v Patrick Stevedores Operations & Anor (1998) 4 VR 143
McDonald’s Australia Ltd v Watson [2013] VSC 502
Nesor Nominees Pty Ltd v Big Boys BBQ Qld Pty Ltd
[2019] FCA 1208
Obela Fresh Dips and Spreads Pty Ltd v Coetzee [2020] NSWSC 1862
PML v Persons Unknown [2018] EWHC 838 (QB)
Stone…

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.

Continue reading HWL Ebsworth Lawyers v Persons Unknown

Details

AGLC: HWL Ebsworth Lawyers v Persons Unknown [2024] NSWSC 71
Case: [2024] NSWSC 71
Decision Date: 12 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of HWL Ebsworth Lawyers v Persons Unknown involves a national law firm, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers, who are plaintiffs in the proceedings. The defendants are unidentified Internet hackers who stole data from the plaintiffs' private databases. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the plaintiffs sought an interlocutory injunction against the hackers, referred to as “persons unknown”. The plaintiffs were granted the injunction, and orders were made to bring the summons and affidavits to the attention of the unknown hackers. The hackers did not appear in court, leading the plaintiffs to seek a default judgment against them.

The legal issues before the court included whether the stolen data from the plaintiffs was identifiable and whether it had the necessary quality of confidence. The court also needed to determine whether the hackers received the information under circumstances importing an obligation of confidence and whether there was actual or threatened misuse of the information. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether default judgment could be entered against the defendants described as "persons unknown" and whether injunctive relief could be granted against these unknown parties. The possibility that the defendants might be identified later and further relief sought against them was also examined.

The court found that the plaintiffs had established that the stolen data was identifiable and had the necessary quality of confidence. The hackers had received the information under circumstances that imported an obligation of confidence, and there was actual or threatened misuse of the information. The court granted the interlocutory injunction and ordered that the summons and affidavits be brought to the attention of the unknown hackers. It held that default judgment could be entered against the unknown defendants as they had not appeared to contest the application. The court also noted that while there was a possibility that the defendants might be identified later, this did not preclude the grant of injunctive relief at that time.

The court made orders for the summons and affidavits to be brought to the attention of the unknown hackers, and granted the plaintiffs an interlocutory injunction against them. Additionally, default judgment was entered against the unknown defendants. The court emphasized that while the defendants might be identified in the future, this did not affect the current orders made. The plaintiffs were thus granted the relief they sought, with the injunction and default judgment providing protection against the misuse of their confidential information by the unknown hackers.

Orders