Idoport v NAB - [1999] NSWSC 686

CITATION: Idoport v NAB [1999] NSWSC 686

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Commercial

FILE NUMBER(S): 50113/98

HEARING DATE(S): 25/06/99, 02/07/99

JUDGMENT DATE:
8 July 1999

PARTIES :

Idoport Pty Limited and Market Holdings Pty Limited - Plaintiffs
National Australia Bank Limited, National Markets Group Limited, National Australia Financial Management Limited, Australian Market Automated Quotation (AUSMAQ) System Limited, Messrs G.L.L. Barnes, F.J. Cicutto,
D.M. Krasnostein, K.F. Courtney and R.A. McKimm - Defendants

JUDGMENT OF: Rolfe J

COUNSEL : Plaintiffs - Mr J.J.J. Garnsey QC/Mr M.C.L. Dicker
Defendants - Mr H.K. Insall

SOLICITORS: Plaintiffs - Freehill Hollingdale & Page
Defendants - Withnell Hetherington

CATCHWORDS: Witness Statements - Claim for confidentiality such that they not be disclosed to certain parties - Rights of Parties - Purpose of Witness Statements.; Warner-Lambert Co v Glaxo Laboratories Limited [1975] RPC 354; Magellan Petroleum Australia Limited v Sagasco Amadeus Pty Limited [1994] 2 QdR 37; Ex parte Fielder Gillespie Limited [1984] 2 QdR 339 at p.341; Hadid v Lenfest Communications Inc & Ors (1996) 70 FLR 403 considered.

DECISION: Claim for complete confidentiality rejected.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
COMMERCIAL LIST

ROLFE J

THURSDAY, 8 JULY 1999

50113/1998 - IDOPORT PTY LIMITED & ANOR v NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED & ORS

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR:
Introduction

1    Idoport Pty Limited, (“JMG”), and Market Holdings Pty Limited, (“Market Holdings”), for which Mr J.J.J. Garnsey of Queen’s Counsel and Mr M.C.L. Dicker of Counsel appeared, instituted these proceedings against National Australia Bank Limited, (“NAB”), National Markets Group Limited, (“NMG”), National Australia Financial Management Limited, (“NAFM”), Australian Market Automated Quotation (AUSMAQ) System Limited, (“AUSMAQ Systems”), and Messrs G.L.L. Barnes, F.J. Cicutto, D.M. Krasnostein, K.F. Courtney and R.A. McKimm, for which and whom Mr H.K. Insall of Counsel appeared.
2    On 3 February 1999 the plaintiffs filed a Further Amended Statement of Claim. I am presently concerned with two Notices of Motion filed on the plaintiffs’ behalf relating to the extent to which, if at all, access to several witness statements, including those of experts, relevant to the computation of the very substantial damages claimed by the plaintiffs in the order of some billions of dollars, should be given to some of the defendants; and the extent of discovery. In this judgment I shall consider the confidentiality issue, and, to understand what it raises, it is necessary to consider, albeit somewhat generally, the nature of the allegations made in the Further Amended Statement of Claim and certain agreements into which the parties entered.

The Further Amended Statement of Claim

3    I shall set out, firstly, some matters in the Further Amended Statement of Claim, which, relevantly for present purposes, are not materially in issue.
4    JMG and Market Holdings are, and were at all material times, controlled by Mr John Malcolm Maconochie. NMG and NAFM are, and were at all material times, subsidiaries of NAB, and AUSMAQ Systems has, since on or before 13 September 1996, been a wholly owned subsidiary of NMG.
5    Mr Barnes is the Executive General Manager,…

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 Idoport v NAB 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: [1999] NSWSC 686
Decision Date: 8 July 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Idoport v National Australia Bank involves a dispute over the confidentiality of witness statements. The plaintiff sought to prevent certain parties from accessing these statements. The matter was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The central legal issues were whether the witness statements were subject to a duty of confidentiality and whether such a duty could override the rights of other parties to access the information.

The court examined the nature of the witness statements and their purpose in the litigation process. It was established that the statements were made in the context of legal proceedings and were intended to be used for that purpose. The court considered previous cases such as Warner-Lambert Co v Glaxo Laboratories Limited, Magellan Petroleum Australia Limited v Sagasco Amadeus Pty Limited, Ex parte Fielder Gillespie Limited, and Hadid v Lenfest Communications Inc & Ors, which provided guidance on the confidentiality of witness statements. The court found that while there was a duty of confidentiality, this did not extend to preventing disclosure to parties who had a legitimate interest in the information. The court held that the rights of the parties involved in the litigation needed to be balanced, and in this case, the duty of confidentiality did not override the need for access to the statements.

The court concluded that the witness statements could be disclosed to the relevant parties, subject to certain conditions to protect the interests of the deponent. The decision underscored the importance of balancing confidentiality with the rights of all parties involved in the litigation. The court ordered that the witness statements be disclosed, with conditions to ensure that the deponent's privacy and the integrity of the proceedings were maintained. This decision provides a clear framework for handling similar disputes in the future.

Orders