Legal Research
Cases
The Star Pty Ltd v AB

The Star Pty Ltd v AB

Case [2024] NSWSC 690 3 June 2024

Discovery & Disclosure

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Intellectual Property Law

Tort Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: The Star Pty Ltd v AB [2024] NSWSC 690
Hearing dates: 3 June 2024
Date of orders: 3 June 2024
Decision date: 03 June 2024
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Meek J
Decision:
Permanent injunction granted and suppression orders made.

Catchwords:
INJUNCTIONS — Permanent injunction — AB applied for employment with P and in a domestic relationship with an employee (CD) of P — P declined to employ AB following results of probity checks — AB without consent of CD obtains access to sensitive database information held by P — AB by text message to P seeks termination of CD’s employment with P at the threat of exposure of confidential details of P’s patrons — P obtains urgent interlocutory relief and seeks permanent restraining order — AB fails to appear on the hearing — Court satisfied AB notified of the hearing — Held interlocutory injunction made permanent
INJUNCTIONS — Permanent injunction — Nature of a permanent injunction
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION — Consideration of the requirements to establish a case of threatened misuse of confidential information accessed impermissibly and restraint relief — “Theft” of confidential records coupled with an attempted misuse in the nature of extortion readily gives rise to a sound action for breach of confidence — Discussion of sort of confidential information and risk of misuse as to justify permanent injunctive relief as distinct from interlocutory relief
CIVIL PROCEDURE — No appearance by defendant — Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 29.7 — Whether defendant “absent” within the meaning of r 29.7 — Court satisfied defendant had notice of hearing by email
CIVIL PROCEDURE — Hearings — Suppression and non-publication orders — Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) (“Act”) — Whether suppression order should be made on the basis that it is necessary: to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice pursuant to s 8(1)(a) of the Act; to protect the safety of any person pursuant to s 8(1)(c) of the Act; and in the public interest pursuant to s 8(1)(e) of the Act

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Ltd v Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 430; (2012) 295 ALR 348
Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [1990] 1 AC 109
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 199; [2001] HCA 63
Australian Football League v Age Co Ltd (2006) 15 VR 419; [2006] VSC 308
Australian Hardboards Ltd v Hudson Investment Group Ltd (2007) 70 NSWLR 201; [2007] NSWCA 104
Breen v Williams (1996) 186 CLR 71; [1996] HCA 57
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation v Perry (1988) 53 SASR 538
Corrs Pavey Whiting & Byrne v Collector of Customers (Vic) (1987) 14 FCR 434; [1987]…

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 The Star Pty Ltd v AB

Details

AGLC: The Star Pty Ltd v AB [2024] NSWSC 690
Case: [2024] NSWSC 690
Decision Date: 03 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Star Pty Ltd (P) sought a permanent injunction against AB, who had previously applied for employment with P and was in a relationship with an employee (CD) of P. P declined to employ AB following the results of probity checks. AB subsequently obtained access to sensitive database information held by P without CD's consent and threatened to expose confidential details of P’s patrons unless CD’s employment was terminated. P obtained urgent interlocutory relief and sought a permanent restraining order, which AB failed to appear for. The court needed to determine whether the requirements for establishing a case of threatened misuse of confidential information, accessed impermissibly and requiring restraint relief, were met. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the defendant was "absent" within the meaning of rule 29.7 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) and whether a suppression order was necessary under the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW).

The court held that the theft of confidential records and the attempted misuse in the nature of extortion gave rise to a sound action for breach of confidence. The nature of the confidential information and the risk of misuse were sufficient to justify permanent injunctive relief rather than interlocutory relief. The court was satisfied that AB had notice of the hearing by email, thus not being "absent" within the meaning of rule 29.7. The suppression order was deemed necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice, to protect the safety of any person, and in the public interest. Therefore, the interlocutory injunction was made permanent.

The court made a permanent restraining order against AB, prohibiting him from accessing P’s premises, databases, and servers, and from communicating with P’s employees or directors, including CD. The court also made a suppression order prohibiting the publication of certain information related to the case. The suppression order was to remain in effect until the case was finally determined, or until further order by the court.

Orders