Lamson Concepts Pty Ltd v Oscuro (No 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 11 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Lamson Concepts Pty Ltd v Oscuro (No 2) [2025] FCA 1100

File number: NSD 501 of 2025
NSD 564 of 2025
Judgment of: VANDONGEN J
Date of judgment: 8 September 2025
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - application for suppression orders pursuant to s 37AF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) prohibiting disclosure of commercially sensitive information - whether orders necessary to prevent prejudice to proper administration of justice - application granted
Legislation:

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 75

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 37AF, 37AG

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 9.02
Cases cited:

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v eToro AUS Capital Limited [2025] FCA 100

Lamson Concepts Pty Ltd v Oscuro [2025] FCA 579

Lamson Concepts Pty Ltd v Schmidt [2025] FCA 677

Leigh v National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] FCA 623
Division: General Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Commercial Contracts, Banking, Finance and Insurance
Number of paragraphs: 22
Date of hearing: 13 May 2025
Counsel for the Applicants: Mr D Mahendra
Solicitor for the Applicants: Citation Legal
Counsel for the Respondents: Dr M Wolff
Solicitor for the Respondents: Prior Law

ORDERS

NSD 501 of 2025
BETWEEN:

LAMSON CONCEPTS PTY LTD

Applicant
AND:

NICHOLAS OSCURO

First Respondent

DAVID SCHMIDT
Second Respondent

AIR-LOG AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 684 381 691)
Third Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

VANDONGEN J

DATE OF ORDER:

8 SEPTEMBER 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant's application for suppression orders pursuant to s 37AF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) is allowed.

2.By 4.00 pm (AWST) on 10 September 2025, the parties are to file a joint minute of proposed orders or, if they are unable to agree, competing minutes of proposed orders, to give effect to these reasons.

3.There be liberty to apply generally upon giving 24 hours' notice.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


ORDERS

NSD 564 of 2025
BETWEEN:

LAMSON CONCEPTS PTY LTD

Applicant
AND:

DAVID SCHMIDT
First Respondent

AIR-LOG AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 684 381 691)
Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

VANDONGEN J

DATE OF ORDER:

8 SEPTEMBER 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant's application for suppression orders pursuant to s 37AF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) is allowed.

2.By 4.00 pm (AWST) on 10 September 2025, the parties are to file a joint minute of proposed orders or, if they are unable to agree, competing minutes of proposed orders, to give effect to these reasons. 

3.There be liberty to apply generally upon giving 24 hours' notice.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

VANDONGEN J:

  1. I have previously summarised the relevant background to these proceedings in Lamson Concepts Pty Ltd v Oscuro [2025] FCA 579 and in Lamson Concepts Pty Ltd v Schmidt [2025] FCA 677. I will use the defined…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Lamson Concepts Pty Ltd v Oscuro (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
[2025] FCA 1100
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lamson Concepts Pty Ltd brought an application against Oscuro for suppression orders under section 37AF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) to prevent the disclosure of commercially sensitive information in the affidavits filed in the proceeding. The application was heard by the Federal Court. The central legal issue was whether the suppression orders were necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice.

The court examined the evidence provided by Lamson and determined that certain information in the affidavits was indeed commercially sensitive and should be protected to maintain the integrity of the litigation process and to prevent potential harm to Lamson's business interests. The court accepted Lamson's submissions that disclosure of the specified information could provide competitors with an unfair advantage and potentially damage Lamson's relationships with clients, contractors, and suppliers.

Accordingly, the court granted the application for suppression orders. The court ordered that by a specified date, the parties were to file a joint minute of proposed orders or, if they were unable to agree, competing minutes of proposed orders. The court also allowed for general liberty to apply for further orders with 24 hours' notice.

The court's decision underscores the importance of protecting commercially sensitive information in legal proceedings to ensure fair competition and protect business interests.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant's application for suppression orders pursuant to s 37AF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) is allowed.

2. By 4.00 pm (AWST) on 10 September 2025, the parties are to file a joint minute of proposed orders or, if they are unable to agree, competing minutes of proposed orders, to give effect to these reasons.

3. There be liberty to apply generally upon giving 24 hours' notice.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Lamson initially sought orders prohibiting the publication or other disclosure of the entire contents of all of the Affidavits. However, after considering the submissions that were made on behalf of all parties, I provided the parties with my views about the specific information in each of the Affidavits that I considered, on a preliminary basis, might properly be regarded as commercially sensitive information, which might then properly be the subject of a suppression order on the ground that it was necessary to preserve the integrity of the litigation process. Lamson subsequently refined its applications to seek suppression orders only in relation to those parts of the Affidavits that corresponded with my preliminary views. Lamson also identified a small number of other pieces of information it submitted should also be suppressed on the ground that it was necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice.The evidence in support of the applications for orders pursuant to s 37AF In support of its applications for suppression orders, Lamson relies on two affidavits affirmed on 7 May 2025 by Lisa Qiu, a solicitor who has carriage of both matters on Lamson's behalf. In each of those affidavits, Ms Qiu says that she has specialised in the practise of employment law since 2015, and that because of her experience, legal training and studies, she considers that she understands what information belonging to a business may be confidential in nature. Ms Qiu also says that she has been informed by Ms Kershaw, Mr Kershaw and Mr Lucas, and believes, that the confidential affidavits likely contain Lamson's commercially sensitive information. She says that if this information were to be made public, it may allow one or more of Lamson's competitors to gain an advantage with respect to several broad streams of Lamson's revenue, including service or maintenance contracts, repair contracts, break down services and spare parts contracts, as well as projects or opportunities which Lamson tenders for or otherwise attempts to secure outside the usual tender process. Ms Qiu considers that the confidential affidavits also refer to matters that provide context to that type of information, as well as information about or belonging to current or prospective clients, contractors or suppliers. Ms Qiu says that if that information were to be made publicly available, it may undermine the confidence those current or prospective clients, contractors or suppliers have in Lamson's ability to secure their confidential information. In both of her affidavits, Ms Qiu identifies specific parts of the confidential affidavits which she says contains information about Lamson's active tenders and opportunities, the number of projects Lamson responded to in 2021 to 2024, as well as the estimated revenue for, and the total approximate value of projects won over, that period. Ms Qiu also says that parts of the confidential affidavits reveal the estimated commercial value of Lamson's open opportunities for 2025 and 2026, information about Lamson's service and maintenance contracts, its repair contracts, its successful and unsuccessful tenders, its tendering process, as well as contextual and client information. She also identifies several other paragraphs in those affidavits that she believes contain information with respect to:(a)a particular confidentiality agreement;(b)an enterprise agreement;(c)previous Lamson employees (including Mr Schmidt);(d)Lamson's relationship with a preferred supplier;(e)a current project in Queensland; and(f)how competitors may be able to obtain a commercial advantage.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.