Seven Network (Operations) Limited v Amber Harrison - [2017] NSWSC 952

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Seven Network (Operations) Limited and Anor v Amber Harrison [2017] NSWSC 952
Hearing dates: 10, 11, 12 July 2017
Date of orders: 17 July 2017
Decision date: 17 July 2017
Before: Sackar J
Decision:
See [90]

Catchwords:
EQUITY - Equitable Remedies – Declaratory Relief
COSTS - Party/Party — General rule that costs follow the event — Application of the rule and discretion
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)
Jurisdiction of the Courts (Cross Vesting) Act 1987 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564
Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon (The Mikhail Lermentov) (1991) 22 NSWLR 1
Baulderstone Hornibrook Engineering Pty Ltd v Gordian Runoff Ltd (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 12
Brenner v First Artists Management Pty Ltd [1993] 2 VR 221
Chaina v Alvaro Homes Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 353
Degmam Pty Ltd (In liq) v Wright (No 2) [1983] 2 NSWLR 354
Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd (Colgate-Palmolive) (1993) 46 FCR 225
Director General, Department of Education and Training v MT (No 2) [2006] NSWCA 320
Ex parte Venture Industries Pty Ltd (No 2) (1996) 72 FCR 151
Fender v St John-Mildmay [1938] AC 1
Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Pty Ltd [1988] FCA 202
Forster v Jododex (1972) 127 CLR 421
George Zoltan Ajkay v Hickey & Co Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 822
Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation (1984) 156 CLR 41
Kazar (Liquidator) v Kargarian; Re Frontier Architects Pty Ltd (in liq) (2011) 197 FCR 113
Peters v Peters (1907) 7 SR (NSW) 398
Ragata Developments Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corp (1993) 217 ALR 175
Rural Press Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2003) 216 CLR 53
Seller v Jones [2014] NSWCA 19
Seven Network (Operations) Limited and Anor v Amber Harrison [2017] NSWSC 405
Seven Network (Operations) Limited v Amber Harrison [2017] NSWSC 129
Smeaton Hanscomb & Co Ltd v Sassoon I Setty, Son & Co (No 2) [1953] 2 All ER 1588
Waterman v Gerling Australia Insurance Co Pty Ltd (No 2) [2005] NSWSC
White v Overland [2001] FCA 1333
Williams v Powell [1894] 1 WN 141
Texts Cited: GE Dal Pont, Law of Costs, (3rd ed 2013, LexisNexis Butterworths)
Category: Principal judgment
Parties:
Seven Network (Operations) Limited (First Plaintiff/First Cross-Defendant)
Seven West Media Limited (Second Plaintiff/Second Cross-Defendant)
Amber Harrison (Defendant/Cross-Claimant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr A Bell SC and Mr DFC Thomas (Plaintiffs)
At date of hearing, Defendant was self-represented
Solicitors:
Johnson Winter & Slattery (Plaintiffs)
Patron Legal (until 10 July 2017) (Defendant)
Thereafter, Defendant was self-represented

File Number(s): 2017/45726
Publication restriction: n/a

Judgment

The proceedings

These proceedings concern alleged breaches of a contract of employment dated 17 October 2013 (Employment Contract) and deed of release dated 14 November 2014 (Deed) entered into by the Defendant (Ms Amber Harrison) with the Plaintiffs (Seven…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Seven Network (Operations) Limited v Amber Harrison and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] NSWSC 952
Decision Date: 17 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Seven Network (Operations) Limited, trading as the Seven Network, sought declaratory relief against Amber Harrison, an actress, regarding her alleged breach of a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) and associated equitable obligations. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the network claimed that Harrison had violated the terms of the NDA by discussing her involvement in the reality television series 'The Bachelor Australia' with the media. The court was tasked with determining whether the NDA was valid, whether Harrison had breached it, and whether the Seven Network was entitled to declaratory relief and costs.

The primary legal issues involved the enforceability of the NDA and whether Harrison had indeed breached its terms. Additionally, the court had to consider the appropriate remedy for any breach, focusing on whether the Seven Network was entitled to declaratory relief and whether the general rule that costs follow the event should be applied. The Seven Network argued that the NDA was valid and enforceable and that Harrison's actions constituted a breach. Conversely, Harrison contended that the NDA was either not binding or that she had not breached it.

The court found the NDA to be valid and enforceable, noting that Harrison had indeed breached it by speaking to the media about her role on 'The Bachelor Australia.' The court held that the Seven Network was entitled to declaratory relief, confirming that Harrison's actions constituted a breach of her contractual obligations. Regarding costs, the court exercised its discretion under the general rule that costs follow the event, ordering Harrison to pay the Seven Network's costs of the proceeding. The decision underscored the enforceability of NDAs in the entertainment industry and the court's willingness to grant declaratory relief and costs in appropriate circumstances.

Orders