District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Spillane v Curr [2011] NSWDC 150 Hearing dates: 21 September 2011 Decision date: 30 September 2011 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Gibson DCJ Decision: (1) These proceedings stayed pending further orders of the Family Court of Australia at Newcastle.
(2) Costs reserved
(3) A copy of this judgment to be sent by email to the Registrar of the Family Court at Newcastle and to Justice Cleary.
(4) Matter returned to Defamation List for further case management on 14 October 2011.
Catchwords: SUBPOENA - implied undertaking not to use documents for collateral purpose - plaintiff uses information in document obtained on subpoena from a third party in Family Court proceedings to commence proceedings for defamation - effect of notation in Family Court orders - subsequent notification of owner of document, who objects to use - whether objection cured by District Court orders - proceedings stayed pending further orders by Family Court Legislation Cited: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss 21(2), 79 and 121 Cases Cited: Ainsworth v Burden [1999] NSWSC 793
Ampolex Ltd v Perpetual Trustee Company (Canberra) Ltd (1995) 13 ACLC 1611
Attorney-General (NSW) v Mayas Pty Ltd (1988) 14 NSWLR 342
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v INFO4PC.COM Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 258
Barach v University of New South Wales [2011] NSWSC 431
Bechara v Bonacorso [2009] NSWDC 131
Bell Group Ltd (in liq) v Westpac Banking Corporation (1998) 166 ALR 699
British American Tobacco Australia Services Limited v Laurie [2011] HCA 2
Byrd and Byrd & Ors [2010] FamCA 547
Capital Television Group Ltd v Northern Rivers Television Pty Ltd (Bainton J, 4 September 1995)
Crest Homes plc v Marks [1987] AC 829; [1987] 2 All ER 1074; [1987] 3 WLR 293
Halcon International Inc v Shell Transport & Trading Co Ltd [1979] RPC 459
Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Lovell (Supreme Court of Western Australia, Pidgeon, Ipp and Anderson JJ, 22 May 1998)
Hearne v Street [2008] HCA 36
Higgins v Sinclair [2011] NSWSC 163
Holpitt Pty Ltd v Varimu Pty Ltd (1991) 103 ALR 684
Jameel (Yousef) v Dow Jones & Co Inc [2005] QB 946
Jell v Jell [2009] FAMCA 960
Kirk v Martens [2008] FamCA 596
Lamont v Dwyer [2008] ACTSC 125
Liberty Funding Pty Ltd v Phoenix Capital Ltd (1995) 218 ALR 283
McCabe v British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd (No. 3) [2002] VSC 150
Metway v Doublelock Limited [1978] 1 All ER 1261
P and W v Manny [2010] ACTSC 50
Pelechowski v Registrar, Court of Appeal (1999) 198 CLR 435
Prudential Assurance Co v Fountain Page Ltd [1991] 1 WLR 756
Schellenberg v British Broadcasting Commission [2000] EMLR 296
Simpson-Cook v Delaforce [2009] NSWSC 357
Springfield Nominees Pty Ltd v Bridgelands Securities Ltd (1992) 38 FCR 217
United Telecasters Sydney Ltd v Hardy (1991) 23 NSWLR 323
Welke v Child Support Registrar (SSAT Appeal) [2011] FMCAfam 2Texts Cited: - Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: Plaintiff: Kathryn Louise Spillane
Defendant: Andrew CurrRepresentation: Plaintiff:…
Continue reading Spillane v Curr
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Spillane v Curr [2011] NSWDC 150
- Case
- [2011] NSWDC 150
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In Spillane v Curr, the plaintiff sought to commence defamation proceedings against the defendant, using information contained in a document that had been obtained through a subpoena issued by the Family Court. The document in question was held by a third party, who had been a party to the Family Court proceedings. The defendant objected to the use of the information in the new proceedings, asserting that it contravened an implied undertaking not to use the document for any collateral purpose. This objection was made after the plaintiff had already initiated the defamation proceedings.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the defendant's objection to the use of the document was valid, and if so, whether the subsequent orders made by the District Court cured the objection. The court had to consider the implications of the notation in the Family Court orders and the effect of the District Court's orders on the objection raised by the document's owner.
The court found that the Family Court orders did indeed contain an implied undertaking regarding the collateral use of the document, and that this undertaking was breached when the plaintiff used the document's contents in the defamation proceedings. The court also held that the defendant's objection to the use of the document was valid, and that the District Court's orders did not cure the objection. Consequently, the defamation proceedings were stayed pending further orders by the Family Court. The court ordered that these proceedings be stayed and reserved costs. Additionally, a copy of the judgment was to be sent to the Registrar of the Family Court at Newcastle and to Justice Cleary. The matter was then returned to the Defamation List for further case management.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the defendant's objection to the use of the document was valid, and if so, whether the subsequent orders made by the District Court cured the objection. The court had to consider the implications of the notation in the Family Court orders and the effect of the District Court's orders on the objection raised by the document's owner.
The court found that the Family Court orders did indeed contain an implied undertaking regarding the collateral use of the document, and that this undertaking was breached when the plaintiff used the document's contents in the defamation proceedings. The court also held that the defendant's objection to the use of the document was valid, and that the District Court's orders did not cure the objection. Consequently, the defamation proceedings were stayed pending further orders by the Family Court. The court ordered that these proceedings be stayed and reserved costs. Additionally, a copy of the judgment was to be sent to the Registrar of the Family Court at Newcastle and to Justice Cleary. The matter was then returned to the Defamation List for further case management.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) These proceedings stayed pending further orders of the Family Court of Australia at Newcastle.
(2) Costs reserved
(3) A copy of this judgment to be sent by email to the Registrar of the Family Court at Newcastle and to Justice Cleary.
(4) Matter returned to Defamation List for further case management on 14 October 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.