Integrated Medical Technology Pty Ltd v Gilbert (No 2) - [2015] QSC 124

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Integrated Medical Technology Pty Ltd and Anor v Gilbert and Ors (No 2) [2015] QSC 124

PARTIES:

INTEGRATED MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY PTY LTD
(First Plaintiff)
INTEGRATED MEDICAL SYSTEMS PTY LTD
(Second Plaintiff)
v
SHANE ROSS GILBERT
(First Defendant)
JJS TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD
(Second Defendant)
BUNDABERG RADIOLOGY PTY LTD
(Third Defendant)
JOHN MITCHELL
(Fourth Defendant)
JASON WILDEN
(Fifth Defendant)
BAYSIDE RADIOLOGY PTY LTD
(Sixth Defendant)
BOLSOVER RADIOLOGY PTY LTD
(Seventh Defendant)
BEACHSIDE RADIOLOGY PTY LTD
(Eighth Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS161 of 2013

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

24 June 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 December 2014

JUDGE:

Jackson J

ORDER:

The order of the court is that:

1.   The defendants disclose the documents identified in exhibit VVC-44 to the affidavit of Visnja Veronica Cavanagh filed on 10 December 2014 (“the affidavit”).

2.   The defendants disclose the documents in categories 2, 3 and 14 of exhibit VVC-43 to the affidavit.

3.   The orders made by Jackson J on 19 November 2013 and 10 September 2014 are varied so that Ms Irene Low is permitted access to some of the restricted disclosure documents in accordance with these reasons.

4.   Direct that the parties are at liberty to apply for any further orders necessary to give effect to these reasons.

5.   Direct that the parties may make any application for and submissions for an order for costs in writing not longer than 5 pages within 10 days.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – DISCOVERY AND INTERROGATORIES – DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS – DISCOVERY OF DOCUMENTS – GENERALLY – where the plaintiffs claim for breach of copyright, breach of confidence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty or breach of statutory obligation – where the plaintiffs allege that the defendants, who were former employees of the plaintiff, copied the plaintiffs’ computer software source code – where the plaintiffs apply for orders that the defendants disclose a class of documents or serve an affidavit stating that such documents do not exist – whether the defendants should disclose the classes of documents to the plaintiff

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), rr 155, 211, 223, 224
Judicature Act 1876 (Qld)
Rules of the Supreme Court 1900 (Qld), o 35, r 18

Alcoa of Australia Ltd v Apache Energy [2014] WASCA 148, cited
Civic Video Pty Ltd v Paterson [2013] WASCA 107, considered
Dr Martens Australia Pty Ltd v BATA Shoe company of Australia Pty Ltd (1997) 75 FCR 230, cited
ex parte; Fielder Gillespie Ltd [1984] 2 Qd R 339, cited
Island Records Ltd v Tring International Plc [1996] 1 WLR 1256, applied
LED Builders Pty Ltd v Eagle Homes Pty Ltd (No 3) (1996) 70 FCR 436, cited
Magellan Petroleum Australia Ltd v Sagasco Amadeus Pty Ltd [1994] 2 Qd R 37, cited
Menkens v Wintour (2010) 88 IPR 333, cited
Mercantile Mutual Custodians Pty Ltd v Village/Nine Network Restaurants & Bars Pty Ltd [2001] 1 Qd R 276; [1999] QCA 276, followed

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 Integrated Medical Technology Pty Ltd v Gilbert (No 2) 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: [2015] QSC 124
Decision Date: 24 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Integrated Medical Technology Pty Ltd brought proceedings against several defendants alleging various breaches of intellectual property law, confidentiality, and contract. The dispute centred on claims that the defendants, who were former employees of the plaintiff, copied the plaintiff’s computer software source code. The plaintiff sought various orders for discovery and inspection of documents from the defendants. This included orders for the defendants to disclose specific classes of documents or affidavits stating that such documents did not exist.

The legal issues before the court were whether the defendants should be required to disclose the specified classes of documents to the plaintiff. The plaintiff argued that these documents were necessary to establish their case against the defendants. The defendants, on the other hand, contended that the documents were protected by confidentiality and should not be disclosed. The court had to balance the plaintiff's right to access relevant information against the defendants' rights to confidentiality.

The court found that the defendants were required to disclose certain documents as specified in the orders. The court considered the nature of the claims made by the plaintiff and the relevance of the documents to the case. The court also noted the need to protect the rights of the defendants where appropriate, while ensuring that the plaintiff's right to a fair trial was upheld. Consequently, the court ordered the defendants to disclose specific documents, while also making variations to earlier orders to allow certain parties access to restricted documents under supervision.

The final orders of the court included specific directions for the disclosure of certain classes of documents by the defendants. The court also permitted access to restricted documents for certain parties and allowed for further applications for costs. This decision highlights the importance of the balance between the rights of parties to access information and the protection of confidential information in litigation.

Orders

Orders of the court

The order of the court is that:

1. The defendants disclose the documents identified in exhibit VVC-44 to the affidavit of Visnja Veronica Cavanagh filed on 10 December 2014 (“the affidavit”).

2. The defendants disclose the documents in categories 2, 3 and 14 of exhibit VVC-43 to the affidavit.

3. The orders made by Jackson J on 19 November 2013 and 10 September 2014 are varied so that Ms Irene Low is permitted access to some of the restricted disclosure documents in accordance with these reasons.

4. Direct that the parties are at liberty to apply for any further orders necessary to give effect to these reasons.

5. Direct that the parties may make any application for and submissions for an order for costs in writing not longer than 5 pages within 10 days.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Integrated Medical Technology Pty Ltd and Anor v Gilbert and Ors (No 2) [2015] QSC 124
PARTIES:	INTEGRATED MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY PTY LTD (First Plaintiff) INTEGRATED MEDICAL SYSTEMS PTY LTD (Second Plaintiff) v SHANE ROSS GILBERT (First Defendant) JJS TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD (Second Defendant) BUNDABERG RADIOLOGY PTY LTD (Third Defendant) JOHN MITCHELL (Fourth Defendant) JASON WILDEN (Fifth Defendant) BAYSIDE RADIOLOGY PTY LTD (Sixth Defendant) BOLSOVER RADIOLOGY PTY LTD (Seventh Defendant) BEACHSIDE RADIOLOGY PTY LTD (Eighth Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BS161 of 2013
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
DELIVERED ON:	24 June 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	16 December 2014
JUDGE:	Jackson J
ORDER:	The order of the court is that: 1. The defendants disclose the documents identified in exhibit VVC-44 to the affidavit of Visnja Veronica Cavanagh filed on 10 December 2014 (“the affidavit”). 2. The defendants disclose the documents in categories 2, 3 and 14 of exhibit VVC-43 to the affidavit. 3. The orders made by Jackson J on 19 November 2013 and 10 September 2014 are varied so that Ms Irene Low is permitted access to some of the restricted disclosure documents in accordance with these reasons. 4. Direct that the parties are at liberty to apply for any further orders necessary to give effect to these reasons. 5. Direct that the parties may make any application for and submissions for an order for costs in writing not longer than 5 pages within 10 days.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – DISCOVERY AND INTERROGATORIES – DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS – DISCOVERY OF DOCUMENTS – GENERALLY – where the plaintiffs claim for breach of copyright, breach of confidence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty or breach of statutory obligation – where the plaintiffs allege that the defendants, who were former employees of the plaintiff, copied the plaintiffs’ computer software source code – where the plaintiffs apply for orders that the defendants disclose a class of documents or serve an affidavit stating that such documents do not exist – whether the defendants should disclose the classes of documents to the plaintiff Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), rr 155, 211, 223, 224 Judicature Act 1876 (Qld) Rules of the Supreme Court 1900 (Qld), o 35, r 18 Alcoa of Australia Ltd v Apache Energy [2014] WASCA 148, cited Civic Video Pty Ltd v Paterson [2013] WASCA 107, considered Dr Martens Australia Pty Ltd v BATA Shoe company of Australia Pty Ltd (1997) 75 FCR 230, cited ex parte; Fielder Gillespie Ltd [1984] 2 Qd R 339, cited Island Records Ltd v Tring International Plc [1996] 1 WLR 1256, applied LED Builders Pty Ltd v Eagle Homes Pty Ltd (No 3) (1996) 70 FCR 436, cited Magellan Petroleum Australia Ltd v Sagasco Amadeus Pty Ltd [1994] 2 Qd R 37, cited Menkens v Wintour (2010) 88 IPR 333, cited Mercantile Mutual Custodians Pty Ltd v Village/Nine Network Restaurants & Bars Pty Ltd [2001] 1 Qd R 276; [1999] QCA 276, followed