Serious Fraud Office v Ross

[2020] NZHC 1956

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2020-404-1251

[2020] NZHC 1956

BETWEEN

SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE

Plaintiff

AND

JAMI-LEE ROSS

First defendant

YIKUN ZHANG
Second defendant

HENGJIA ZHENG
Third defendant

ZHIJIA ZHENG

Fourth defendant

Teleconference:

29 July 2020

Counsel:

S J Bonnar QC for the plaintiff

R M Mansfield and H C Stuart for the first defendant R J Katz QC and L J Lindsay for the second defendant

P E Dacre QC and R L Thomson for the third and fourth defendant

Judgment:

6 August 2020

JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 6 August 2020 at 12.30pm. Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

…………………………

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Counsel:

S J Bonnar QC, Auckland

R M Mansfield, Barrister, Auckland H C Stuart, Barrister, Auckland

R J Katz QC, Auckland

L Lindsay, Barrister, Auckland P E Dacre QC, Auckland

R L Thomson, Barrister, Auckland

Serious Fraud Office, Auckland

SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE v ROSS [2020] NZHC 1956 [6 August 2020]

[1]                  I now have the Serious Fraud Office’s (“SFO”) without notice application for an interlocutory injunction, and undertaking as to damages, in this proceeding alleging Jami-Lee Ross’ breach of confidence in relation to documents inadvertently disclosed to the defendants by the SFO.

[2]                  I was satisfied requiring the SFO to proceed on notice would cause undue delay or prejudice to it and determined the application could properly be dealt with without notice.1

[3]                  For the reasons explained at [2] of each my minutes of 29 July and 4 August (supplemented 5 August) 2020,2 I now formalise the orders then made.

[4]                  With reference to the SFO’s undertaking as to damages dated 4 August 2020, until further order of the Court, I order Jami-Lee Ross to:

(a)destroy and delete any and all copies of the documents numbered SFO00026724 and SFO00026725 (or any part thereof) in his power, possession, or control; and

(b)refrain from referring to, making any use of, or further disclosing the documents numbered SFO00026724 and SFO00026725 (or any part thereof).

—Jagose J

1      High Court Rules 2016, r 7.46.

2      29 July 2020: “The documents are said to have been obtained by the SFO from their owner under conditions of statutory secrecy, contain private and confidential information, be disclosed to the defendants in error, and risk use by Mr Ross contrary to those statutory provisions”, citing Serious Fraud Office Act 1990, ss 9 and 36, and “Mr Ross is reported by the New Zealand Herald yesterday to have claimed ‘to have been leaked’ information consistent with the inadvertently disclosed documents, which he ‘planned to table ... in Parliament’.”

4 August 2020: “I required the informal without notice application to be formalised, so my order also could be formalised, such as to enable parties to seek its variation or rescission”, citing High Court Rules 2016, rr 7.49 and 7.53(2).