Obeid v IPP - [2015] NSWSC 1755

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Obeid v Ipp [2015] NSWSC 1755
Hearing dates: 6 November 2015
Date of orders: 03 December 2015
Decision date: 03 December 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Davies J
Decision:
1. The claim for public interest immunity in relation to the redacted part of the application for search warrant dated 22 November 2011 referred to as Confidential Exhibit SLL-1 in the Open Affidavit of Sharon Leigh Loder sworn 11 September 2015 is upheld;

2. Set aside the Plaintiffs’ Notice to Produce dated 27 August 2015;
3. Refuse prayers 8 and 9 in the Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion filed 6 November 2015.
Catchwords: EVIDENCE – documents – production of documents –production required by Plaintiffs in support of their case - public interest immunity – matters of state - three stage test – whether appropriate to permit document to be made available to Plaintiffs’ or their lawyers on a confidentiality basis – document material but not critical to Plaintiffs’ case – public interest immunity upheld
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 (NSW)
Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Regulation 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Alfred Crompton Amusement Machines Ltd v Customs and Excise Commissioners (No. 2) [1974] AC 405
Alister v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 404
Attorney General v Kaddour & Turkmani [2001] NSWCCA 456
Attorney General (NSW) v Lipton [2012] NSWCCA 156; 224 A Crim R 177
DPP v Smith (1996) 86 A Crim R 308
Hilton v Wells (1985) 15 A Crim R 418; 5 FCR 296
Kanthal Australia Pty Limited v The Minister For Industry, Technology And Commerce (1987) 14 FCR 90
NCA v Gould (1989) 90 ALR 489
Sankey v Whitlam (1978) 142 CLR 1
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Edward Moses Obeid Snr (First Plaintiff)
Moses Edward Obeid (Second Plaintiff)
Paul Edward Obeid (Third Plaintiff)
Edward Joseph Obeid Jnr (Fourth Plaintiff)
The Honourable David Andrew Ipp (First Defendant)
Geoffrey Maurice Watson (Second Defendant)
Sharon Loder (Third Defendant)
Timothy Fox (Fourth Defendant)
Lisa Stockley (Fifth Defendant)
Grant Lockley (Sixth Defendant)
Roy Waldon (Seventh Defendant)
Paul Grainger (Eighth Defendant)
Darren Curd (Ninth Defendant)
State of New South Wales (Tenth Defendant)
Independent Commission Against Corruption (Eleventh Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
CRC Newlinds SC, S Chrysanthou & A O’Brien (Plaintiff)
S Free (First Defendant)
D A McLure SC & P Sharp (Second Defendant)
J J Hutton (Third to Fifth Defendants, Seventh to Tenth Defendants except re prayers 8, 9 & 10)
R Bhalla (Third to Fifth Defendants, Seventh to Tenth Defendants re prayers 8, 9 & 10)
R S Scruby (Sixth Defendant)
J K Kirk SC (Eleventh Defendant)
Solicitors:
Breene & Breene Solicitors (Plaintiff)
Corrs Chambers Westgarth (First Defendant)
HWL Ebsworth (Second Defendant)
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Third to Fifth Defendants, Seventh to Tenth Defendants)
Kemp Strang (Sixth Defendant)
Ashurst Australia (Eleventh Defendant)

File Number(s): 2015/201089

Judgment

The Plaintiffs in these proceedings seek declarations, orders and damages in respect of various reports prepared by the Independent Commission…

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 Obeid v IPP

Details

AGLC: Obeid v IPP [2015] NSWSC 1755
Case: [2015] NSWSC 1755
Decision Date: 03 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a dispute between the plaintiffs and the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). The plaintiffs sought the production of certain documents, which they believed were necessary to support their case. However, ICAC claimed public interest immunity over these documents, arguing that their disclosure would harm matters of state. The court was tasked with determining whether the documents should be produced to the plaintiffs on a confidential basis, or if public interest immunity should prevail.

The legal issues at the heart of this case revolved around the balance between the plaintiffs' right to access evidence and the protection of sensitive state matters. The court had to apply the three-stage test to assess whether the public interest in maintaining the immunity of the documents outweighed the need for the plaintiffs to have access to them. This involved considering the nature of the documents, the relevance of the documents to the plaintiffs' case, and whether there was an alternative means of obtaining the information without disclosing the documents.

The court held that the documents were indeed material and relevant to the plaintiffs' case, but they were not critical to its success. While acknowledging the importance of the plaintiffs' right to access evidence, the court found that the public interest in protecting matters of state was more significant in this instance. Consequently, the court upheld the claim of public interest immunity, ruling that the documents should not be disclosed to the plaintiffs or their lawyers on a confidential basis.

As a result of the court's decision, the plaintiffs were not granted access to the contested documents. The public interest immunity claim was upheld, and the documents remained protected from disclosure. The court's ruling reflects the delicate balance that must be struck between the rights of parties involved in litigation and the need to safeguard sensitive information in the public interest.

Orders