Legal Research
Cases
Napier v Treasury Wine Estates Ltd

Napier v Treasury Wine Estates Ltd

Case [2020] VSC 765 17 November 2020

Appeal

Discovery & Disclosure

Confidentiality

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL COURT

GROUP PROCEEDINGS LIST

S ECI 2020 01983

STEVEN NAPIER	Plaintiff/First Defendant to Counterclaim
and
MAURICE BLACKBURN PTY LTD	Second Defendant to Counterclaim
v
TREASURY WINE ESTATES LIMITED (ACN 004 373 862)	Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim

---

JUDGE:	Nichols J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	15 May 2020, 3 September 2020
DATE OF RULING:	17 November 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Napier v Treasury Wine Estates Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 765

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Suppression orders – Confidentiality orders – Parties seeking suppression orders over information inadvertently disclosed in open court – Common law principle of open justice – Whether orders necessary to prevent a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the proper administration of justice – Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic), ss 3, 17, 18, 20.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff/Defendants to Counterclaim	Mr J Sheahan QC Mr G Donnellan Mr R Yezerski	Maurice Blackburn
For the Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim	Mr M Garner Mr G Kozminsky	Herbert Smith Freehills
For Ms Caulfield and Mr Bolza	Self-represented
For Mr Donnellan	Ms R Francois	Moray & Agnew

HER HONOUR:

Steven Napier issued a proceeding in May 2020 alleging on behalf of a group of shareholders in the defendant (Treasury), that Treasury had breached obligations imposed on it by s 674(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to make continuous disclosure of certain price-sensitive information, and had engaged in related misleading or deceptive conduct. By orders made in October 2020 Mr Napier’s proceeding was consolidated with an overlapping group proceeding issued by Brett Stallard.[1] I shall refer to the Napier proceeding and the consolidated action as the principal proceeding, in order to distinguish it from a distinct application and claim concerning the use of confidential information in the principal proceeding, with which this ruling is concerned.
[1]Stallard v Treasury Wine Estates Ltd; Napier v Treasury Wine Estates Ltd [2020] VSC 679.

Very shortly after the principal proceeding was commenced by Mr Napier, Treasury sought urgent relief restraining the use by Napier and his lawyers (Maurice Blackburn) of what it said was information confidential to it. The information was said to have been reproduced or described and disclosed in Napier’s statement of claim. In material filed in support of its application Treasury said (in summary) that:

(a) It had released a presentation which had embedded within it Treasury’s confidential information, which Treasury had not intended to disclose;

(b) The information was not visible, apparent or readily accessible on the face of the presentation and was not in the public domain;

(c) The information was inadvertently embedded in the presentation;

(d) Napier and certain of its lawyers became aware of the confidential information and used it in formulating Napier’s statement of claim, in circumstances where they were aware or ought to have been aware that the information was confidential and that Treasury had not intended to disclose it and accordingly,…

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.

Continue reading Napier v Treasury Wine Estates Ltd

Details

AGLC: Napier v Treasury Wine Estates Ltd [2020] VSC 765
Case: [2020] VSC 765
Decision Date: 17 November 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Napier v Treasury Wine Estates Ltd was a case before the Supreme Court of Victoria, involving a dispute over the disclosure of confidential information during court proceedings. The plaintiff, Napier, was suing Treasury Wine Estates Ltd, a wine company, for various claims including breach of contract and misleading conduct. During the course of the trial, certain confidential information was inadvertently disclosed in open court, leading to applications for suppression and confidentiality orders to protect sensitive data from further dissemination.

The court was tasked with determining whether the orders were necessary to prevent a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the proper administration of justice, in light of the common law principle of open justice. The court considered the potential harm to the parties involved and the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the disclosed information. Under the Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic), the court had to balance the need for secrecy with the principle of open justice, ensuring that any orders made were proportionate and necessary.

In reaching its decision, the court found that the orders were necessary to prevent substantial prejudice to the proper administration of justice. The court recognised the importance of maintaining confidentiality in certain circumstances and concluded that the potential harm from the inadvertent disclosure outweighed the public interest in open justice. Consequently, the court granted the suppression and confidentiality orders to protect the sensitive information from further exposure. The orders were tailored to limit the scope of the disclosure and prevent any potential prejudice to the proceedings.

Orders