Onefone Australia Pty Ltd v One.Tel Ltd

[2009] NSWSC 821

CITATION:	Onefone Australia Pty Ltd v One.Tel Ltd [2009] NSWSC 821
HEARING DATE(S):	17/08/09
JUDGMENT DATE :	17 August 2009
JURISDICTION:	Equity Division Corporations List
JUDGMENT OF:	Barrett J
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:	17 August 2009
DECISION:	See paragraph 3.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE - application for confidentiality order in respect of whole affidavit - only isolated paragraphs confidential - order that affidavit be kept confidential but that a copy omitting the relevant few paragraphs be filed
CATEGORY:	Principal judgment
PARTIES:	Onefone Australia Pty Limited - First Plaintiff DCA Resources Australia Pty Limited - Second Plaintiff Pacific Finance Group Pty Limited - Third Plaintiff Concept Systems (Australia) Pty Limited - Fourth Plaintiff One.Tel Limited (in liquidation) - First Defendant Steven Sherman - Second Defendant Peter Walker - Third Defendant Paul Gerard Weston - Applicant
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 5291/03
COUNSEL:	Mr R D Glasson - Applicant
SOLICITORS:	NOT Lawyers - Applicant

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
CORPORATIONS LIST

BARRETT J

MONDAY 17 AUGUST 2009

005291/03 ONEFONE AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED & ORS v ONE.TEL LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) & ORS

JUDGMENT

1 The applicant special purpose liquidator seeks a confidentiality order in respect of the whole of his affidavit of 14 August 2009 filed in court today.

2 I have taken the opportunity to review the affidavit with counsel paragraph by paragraph.

3 In the result I order that the affidavit be kept in the court file in an envelope marked, “Confidential - Not to be opened without the leave of the Judge” but that there be filed separately without any confidentiality embargo a copy of the affidavit from which have been removed paras 13, 14 and 15 and the reference to the correspondence in para 18.

4 There will then be on the court file a copy which contains the vast bulk of the material in respect of which confidentiality was originally sought but for which no claim for confidentiality has been made out.

5 It has become commonplace in this matter for the special purpose liquidator, upon ex parte applications such as today’s, to make a blanket claim for confidentiality in respect of the evidence he files. That is not an acceptable approach. For the future the special purpose liquidator should be prepared to substantiate paragraph by paragraph the confidential nature of the evidence in the way that has happened this morning.

**********