Missingham v Shamin

In the matter of Missingham v Shamin, the plaintiff, Missingham, sought an interlocutory injunction against the defendant, Shamin, alleging that Shamin had breached a confidentiality clause contained in a deed that settled prior defamation proceedings between the parties. The court was required to determine whether Shamin had indeed breached the confidentiality clause by making certain posts on an internet forum and whether Missingham had a strong case for relief at the interlocutory stage. Furthermore, the court had to consider Shamin's contention that Missingham lacked clean hands, which might entitle Shamin to refuse relief, and whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.

The court found that while some of the content complained of was already in the public domain due to pronouncements made during the court proceedings, this did not entirely negate the confidentiality obligation. The court was satisfied that Missingham had a strongly arguable case for relief at the interlocutory stage. Regarding the clean hands doctrine, the court noted that it was not established that the court would decline final relief on this basis. The balance of convenience clearly favoured granting the injunction, as refusing it would completely defeat the obligation of confidence. There was no evidence suggesting that Shamin would suffer prejudice if the injunction were granted.

The court granted the interlocutory injunction, restraining Shamin from making any further posts on the internet forum that might breach the confidentiality clause. The court's decision was based on the arguable case presented by Missingham, the limited extent to which the information was already in the public domain, and the balance of convenience favouring the grant of the injunction.