WAM Active Limited v Keybridge Capital Limited

WAM Active Limited sued Keybridge Capital Limited over allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct and breach of fiduciary duty. The dispute centred around whether Keybridge had engaged in unfair practices in relation to the sale of a property. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue was whether the plaintiff was entitled to inspect certain documents disclosed by the defendant during the proceedings, given that both parties were trade rivals. The plaintiff argued that the documents contained commercially sensitive information that should be protected. The defendant contended that the plaintiff's business interests were not at risk of disclosure and that the documents should be made available for inspection.

The court examined the nature of the relationship between the parties, finding that while they were indeed trade rivals, this alone was not sufficient grounds to withhold documents. The court also considered the commercial sensitivity of the documents in question. It concluded that some information was indeed commercially sensitive and should be protected. However, the court determined that certain parts of the documents could be disclosed to a designated officer of the plaintiff, who would handle the sensitive information appropriately.

As a result of the court's decision, an order was made permitting the plaintiff to inspect the documents, with certain redactions to protect commercially sensitive information. The designated officer was instructed to handle the redacted documents in a manner that ensured the protection of the sensitive information.