Link 2 Pty Ltd v Ezystay Systems Pty Ltd

Case [2016] NSWCA 317

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Summary available
Medium Neutral Citation: Link 2 Pty Ltd v Ezystay Systems Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCA 317
Hearing dates:20 July 2016
Decision date: 22 November 2016
Before: Bathurst CJ at [1];
Ward JA at [2];
Leeming JA at [240]
Decision:

(1) Refuse leave to the appellants and cross-appellants respectively to appeal/cross-appeal.
(2) Dismiss the notice- of appeal and notice of cross-appeal as incompetent.
(3) Each party to pay its own costs of the proceedings in this Court.

Catchwords:

APPEAL – whether leave required for appeal/cross-appeal – respective complaints by appellants/cross-appellants as to ambit of injunctive relief granted by primary judge – complaint by appellants as to apportionment of costs – leave required for both appeal and cross-appeal – leave refused

 

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION – whether respondents’ software, business manuals and other documents were confidential

  DIRECTORS – duties owed to companies – whether use by third appellant of respondents’ documents amounted to breach of statutory and fiduciary duties
Legislation Cited: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 182, 183, 1317H
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 55, 79, 135
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 101(2)(r)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 31.28, 42.1
Cases Cited: AG Australia Holdings Ltd v Burton [2002] NSWSC 454; (2002) 58 IPR 327
Be Financial Pty Ltd as Trustee for Be Financial Operations Trust v Das [2012] NSWCA 164
Bramco Electronics Pty Ltd v ATF Mining Electrics Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 392
British Franco Electric Pty Ltd v Dowling Plastics Pty Ltd [1981] 1 NSWLR 448
CEF Holdings Ltd v City Electrical Factors Ltd [2012] EWHC 1524
Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd [1969] RPC 41
Commercial Plastics v Vincent [1965] 1 QB 623
Dalgety Wine Estates Pty Ltd v Rizzon (1979) 141 CLR 552; [1979] HCA 41
Del Casale v Artedomus (Aust) Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 172; (2007) 73 IPR 326
Drake Personnel Ltd v Beddison [1979] VR 13
Durham v Durham (2011) 80 NSWLR 335; [2011] NSWCA 62
Ezystay Systems Pty Ltd v Link 2 Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 180
Ezystay Systems Pty Ltd v Link 2 Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 1105
Ezystay Systems Pty Ltd v Link 2 Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1594
Franchi v Franchi [1967] RPC 149
H&R Block Ltd v Sanott [1976] 1 NZLR 213
Hampson v Hampson [2010] NSWCA 359
Harrison v Project and Design Co (Redcar) Ltd [1978] FSR 81
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
Industrial Furnaces Ltd v Reaves [1970] RPC 605
Jaycar Pty Ltd v Lombardo [2011] NSWCA 284
JC Williamson Ltd v Lukey (1931) 45 CLR 282; [1931] HCA 15
Jensen v Ray [2011] NSWCA 247
Lancashire Fires Ltd v SA Lyons & Co Ltd [1996] FSR 629
Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705; [2001] NSWCA 305
New South Wales v Stevens (2012) 82 NSWLR 106; [2012] NSWCA 415
Ocular Sciences Ltd v Aspect Vision Care Ltd [1997] RPC…

Continue reading Link 2 Pty Ltd v Ezystay Systems Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Link 2 Pty Ltd v Ezystay Systems Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCA 317
Case
[2016] NSWCA 317
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Link 2 Pty Ltd and others (the appellants) appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against orders made by a primary judge concerning injunctive relief and costs. Ezystay Systems Pty Ltd (the respondents) cross-appealed. The dispute concerned the alleged use by the appellants of confidential information belonging to the respondents, including software, business manuals, and other documents, which the respondents contended constituted a breach of statutory and fiduciary duties by directors.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether leave was necessary for the appellants and cross-appellants to pursue their respective appeals and cross-appeals. The appellants complained about the scope of the injunctive relief granted by the primary judge, while the cross-appellants raised issues regarding the apportionment of costs. A further issue was whether the documents in question were indeed confidential.

The Court determined that leave was required for both the appeal and the cross-appeal. Having considered the grounds raised by the parties, the Court concluded that leave to appeal and cross-appeal should be refused. Consequently, the notice of appeal and the notice of cross-appeal were dismissed as incompetent. The Court ordered that each party bear its own costs of the proceedings in the Court of Appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Refuse leave to the appellants and cross-appellants respectively to appeal/cross-appeal.

(2) Dismiss the notice- of appeal and notice of cross-appeal as incompetent.

(3) Each party to pay its own costs of the proceedings in this Court.

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.