Legal Research
Cases
Macquarie Bank Ltd v Seagle

Macquarie Bank Ltd v Seagle

Link copied

Case Copied 15 August 2005 21 min read

Contents

On this page

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Macquarie Bank Limited v Seagle [2005] FCA 1239
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where respondent does not file appearance or attend hearings – where applicants have filed application seeking various relief and statement of claim – where respondent ‘in default’ – relief sought in application granted pursuant to O 35A r 3(2)(c) Federal Court Rules
Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth)
Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)
Federal Court Rules 1976 (Cth) O 35A
Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW)
Stuart Alexander & Co Pty Ltd v Trans-Atlantic (SA) (Pty) Ltd [2005] FCA 490 discussed
MACQUARIE BANK LIMITED AND MACQUARIE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v DAVID SEAGLE
NSD 1096 OF 2005
CONTI J
15 AUGUST 2005
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 1096 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

MACQUARIE BANK LIMITED
FIRST APPLICANT

MACQUARIE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED
SECOND APPLICANT

AND:

DAVID SEAGLE
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

CONTI J

DATE OF ORDER:

15 AUGUST 2005

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

IN THESE ORDERS THE FOLLOWING TERMS CARRY THESE MEANINGS
Copyright Materials means the original literary works identified in exhibit RJH-5 to the affidavit of Richard John Hughes sworn 1 July 2005 and in paragraph 45 of the affidavit of Tobias Roberts sworn 1 July 2005.
Confidential Information means:
(a) the parties to, and involved in, the Tender; and
(b)subject to (c) all information relating to the Tender including without limitation as set out in the emails that are listed in confidential exhibit RJH-4 to the affidavit of Richard John Hughes sworn 1 July 2005, and in any other emails and attached documents received at the email address frank.russo@accesseconomics.com.
(c)the Confidential Information does not include the fact that the assets to which the Tender related have now been sold nor does it include the identity of the person to whom the assets were sold.

Tender means the tender process, details of which are set in confidential exhibit RJH-1 to the affidavit of Richard John Hughes sworn 1 July 2005 and includes all preparation by the Macquarie Parties in relation to that process.
THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDERS:
1.A declaration that the Respondent has used or threatened to use the Confidential Information of the Applicants by:
(a)publishing the Confidential Information or part thereof on the website to sell, provide, or communicate the Confidential Information or any part thereof to third parties,

contrary to the equitable duty of confidence.
2.A declaration that the Respondent has infringed the copyright of the applicants in the Copyright Materials by:
(a)reproducing some or all of the Copyright Materials;
(b)publishing some or all of the Copyright Materials;
(c)communicating some or all of the Copyright Materials to the public.

3.A declaration that the Respondent has engaged in conduct that is misleading and deceptive or likely to mislead and deceive, contrary to s. 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974.
4.A declaration that the Respondent has acted in breach of his contractual obligation under his agreement with the First Applicant dated 24 November 2003.
5.A declaration…

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 Macquarie Bank Ltd v Seagle 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: [2005] FCA 1239
Decision Date: 15 AUGUST 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Macquarie Bank Limited and Macquarie New Zealand Limited commenced proceedings against David Seagle in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicants sought various forms of relief against the respondent for his alleged misuse of confidential information and copyright material, and for his misleading and deceptive conduct. The proceedings were conducted under Order 35A rule 3(2)(c) of the Federal Court Rules, which allows the Court to enter judgment against a respondent for the relief that the applicant appears entitled to on the statement of claim where the respondent is in default. Mr Seagle did not file a defence or appear in court, leading to the Court declaring him to be in default. The applicants' claims were based on the respondent's alleged breach of the equitable duty of confidence, copyright infringement, misleading and deceptive conduct, and breach of contract. The Court found that the applicants had satisfied the requirements of Order 35A rule 3(2)(c), including demonstrating proper service of process and jurisdiction to grant the relief sought. The Court granted the relief sought by the applicants, including declarations of misuse of confidential information, copyright infringement, misleading and deceptive conduct, and breach of contract, as well as injunctive and other orders.

Orders