Legal Research
Cases
Phillips v Robab Pty Ltd

Phillips v Robab Pty Ltd

Case [2014] NSWSC 1520 4 November 2014

Confidentiality & Privacy Law

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: James Phillips v Robab Pty Limited [2014] NSWSC 1520
Hearing dates: 27-28 May 2013, 30-31 May 2013, 14 June 2013, 2 August 2013
Decision date: 04 November 2014
Before: Rothman J
Decision:
(1)Judgment for the plaintiff;
(2)Judgment for the cross-defendant on the cross-claim;
(3)The second and fourth defendants shall pay the plaintiff $50,000.00 damages;
(4)The parties have liberty to address on interest and costs on a date to be set.

Catchwords: DEFAMATION - internet site - damage to reputation - truth not established - insufficient reciprocity of interest to warrant qualified privilege - damages awarded - permanent injunction granted
BREACH OF CONFIDENCE - principles discussed - facts not established - inconsistency between equitable damage and account for profit discussed
Legislation Cited: Australian Consumer Law 2012
Defamation Act 2005
Cases Cited: Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158
Bashford v Information Australia (Newsletters) Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 5; (2004) 218 CLR 366
Besser v Kermode [2011] NSWCA 174; (2011) 282 ALR 314
Cantwell v Sinclair [2011] NSWSC 1244
Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd (1968) 1A IPR 587
Commonwealth v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1980) 147 CLR 39
Corrs Pavey Whiting & Byrne v Collector of Customs (Vic) (1987) 14 FCR 434
Cush v Dillon; Boland v Dillon [2011] HCA 30; (2011) 243 CLR 298
David v Abdishou [2012] NSWCA 109
Dart Industries Inc v Decor Corp Pty Ltd [1993] HCA 54; (1993) 179 CLR 101
De Vitre v Betts (1873) LR 6 HL 319
Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56; (2002) 210 CLR 575
Edmonds v Donovan [2005] VSCA 36; (2005) 12 VR 513
Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler [1987] Ch 117
Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd [2007] HCA 22; (2007) 230 CLR 89
Haddon v Forsyth [2011] NSWSC 123
Ilich v R [1987] HCA 1; (1987) 162 CLR 110
Landmark Underwriting Agency Pty Ltd v Kilborn [2006] NSWSC 1108
McMahon v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd (No 6) [2012] NSWSC 224
Mizikovsky v Queensland Television Ltd [2013] QCA 68
Neilson v Betts (1871) LR 5 HL 1
Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Chesterton [2009] HCA 16; (2009) 238 CLR 460
Reader's Digest Services Pty Ltd v Lamb [1982] HCA 4; (1982) 150 CLR 500
Riteway Express Pty Ltd v Clayton (1987) 10 NSWLR 238
Warman International Ltd v Dwyer [1995] HCA 18; (1995) 182 CLR 544
Wright v Gasweld Pty Ltd (1991) 22 NSWLR 317
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: James Phillips (Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant)
Robab Pty Limited (First Defendant)
CC Medical Offices Pty Ltd (Second Defendant/Cross-Claimant)
Elizabeth Abbate (Third Defendant)
Brad Robinson (Fourth Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
R.W Potter (Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant)
A.S Dawson/with L.E Brown (First, Second/Cross Claimant, Third and Fourth Defendants)
Solicitors:
Turner Freeman Lawyers (Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant)
Bank Haddock Fiora Lawyers (First, Second/Cross Claimant, Third and Fourth Defendants)

File Number(s): 2011/78827
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff,…

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 Phillips v Robab Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Phillips v Robab Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1520
Case: [2014] NSWSC 1520
Decision Date: 04 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Phillips v Robab Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the plaintiff, who was a former employee of Robab Pty Ltd, and the defendant, an Australian company. The plaintiff alleged defamation and breach of confidence against the defendant. The defamation claim stemmed from a post on the defendant's website that the plaintiff argued caused damage to his reputation. The plaintiff also claimed that the defendant breached confidence by disclosing information about him. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The legal issues that the court needed to decide were whether the defendant's post on its website defamed the plaintiff, whether the defendant breached confidence by disclosing information about the plaintiff, and if so, what damages should be awarded and what remedies should be granted. The court had to consider whether the post on the defendant's website was defamatory and whether the defendant had established the truth of the post as a defence. The court also had to consider whether the defendant's disclosure of information about the plaintiff breached confidence and whether the plaintiff was entitled to damages and an injunction.

The court held that the post on the defendant's website was defamatory and that the defendant had not established the truth of the post as a defence. The court also held that the defendant had breached confidence by disclosing information about the plaintiff. However, the court found that the plaintiff had not established the necessary facts to warrant an award of damages for breach of confidence. The court granted the plaintiff a permanent injunction to prevent the defendant from making further disclosures about him. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to an award of damages for the defamation and granted the plaintiff the injunction.

The court ordered the defendant to pay damages to the plaintiff for the defamation and to grant the plaintiff a permanent injunction to prevent the defendant from disclosing further information about him. The court did not award damages for breach of confidence as the plaintiff had not established the necessary facts to warrant such an award.

Orders