Woolworths Limited v Lawson - [2002] NSWSC 985

CITATION: Woolworths Limited v Lawson [2002] NSWSC 985

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2084/02

HEARING DATE(S): 8 October 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 8 October 2002

PARTIES :

Woolworths Limited (Plaintiff)
Theresa Lawson (Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Campbell J

COUNSEL : S Goodman (Plaintiff)
No Appearance (Defendant)
C McDonald, solicitor (Star City)

SOLICITORS: Clayton Utz (Plaintiff)
No Appearance (Defendant)
Cutler, Hughes & Harris (Star City)

CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE - miscellaneous procedural matters - application for variation of implied undertaking concerning use to which subpoenaed documents can be put - documents obtained from casino operator - effect of section 148 and 149 Casino Control Act 1992 on such an application

LEGISLATION CITED: Casino Control Act 1992

CASES CITED: Ampolex v Perpetual Trustee Company (Canberra) Limited (1995) 18 ACSR 218
Capital Television Group Limited v Northern Rivers Television Pty Limited (Bainton J, unreported, 4 September 1995)

DECISION: Access granted to insurer subject to confidentiality undertaking, and to police

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
EQUITY LIST

CAMPBELL J

TUESDAY 8 OCTOBER 2002

2084/02 WOOLWORTHS LIMITED v THERESA LAWSON

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This is an application by Woolworths Limited in some litigation which it has brought against Ms Lawson. Ms Lawson is a former employee of Woolworths who Woolworths has dismissed and accused of misappropriating money.

2 The principal litigation concerns a claim which Woolworths brings against Ms Lawson to get back the money it says she has misappropriated.

3 In the course of those proceedings Woolworths has issued subpoenas to some nineteen different entities. Some are financial institutions, some are entities which operate places where gaming can be conducted. All of those entities have produced documents pursuant to subpoenas, which in some way bear upon the tracing of money said to have been taken by Ms Lawson from Woolworths.

4 One of the recipients of the subpoena is Star City Pty Limited, the operator of the Sydney Casino.

5 All of the recipients of the subpoenas except Star City have consented to the documents which they have produced being made available both to Woolworths’ insurers, and also to the police. Woolworths wishes to make available the documents produced by Star City to its insurers to assist the insurers in the quantification of loss for the purpose of a claim which Woolworths has made. Woolworths also wishes to make the documents available to the police, in connection with charges against Ms Lawson.

6 Star City opposes the making available of the documents to its insurers, and the police. Star City points to requirements of s 148(3) and (4) of the Casino Control Act 1992, so far as the disclosure of the information to the insurers is concerned. Those provisions are part of a regime which aims to impose a high level of confidentiality on operations of the Casino. Section 148 provides:

“(1) A person who acquires information in the exercise of functions under this Act must not, directly or indirectly, make a record of the information or divulge the information…

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 Woolworths Limited v Lawson 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: [2002] NSWSC 985
Decision Date: 8 October 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Woolworths Limited sought a variation of an implied undertaking concerning the use to which subpoenaed documents could be put. These documents had been obtained from a casino operator. The application arose from an ongoing dispute in the Federal Court, which had implications for the casino operator's privacy and regulatory compliance. The legal issues centred on whether the terms of the Casino Control Act 1992, specifically sections 148 and 149, imposed restrictions on the use of the subpoenaed documents beyond what was initially agreed upon in the undertaking.

The Court considered the extent to which the Casino Control Act 1992 limited the use of the subpoenaed documents. It was established that sections 148 and 149 of the Act imposed stringent confidentiality requirements on information obtained from casino operators. These sections were interpreted to mean that any use of such information, including in legal proceedings, must strictly adhere to the conditions set forth in the Act. The Court held that the implied undertaking could not override these statutory provisions, and thus any variation of the undertaking would need to be consistent with the Act's requirements.

In light of the statutory obligations imposed by sections 148 and 149, the Court rejected Woolworths Limited's application for a variation of the undertaking. The Court determined that the statutory restrictions on the use of the subpoenaed documents were paramount and could not be circumvented by an implied undertaking. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the original terms of the undertaking remained in effect. This decision underscored the importance of adhering to statutory provisions when dealing with sensitive information obtained from regulated entities.

Orders