Serious Fraud Office v Ross

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).

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand was presented with a case brought by the Serious Fraud Office against Jami-Lee Ross, Yikun Zhang, Hengjia Zheng, and Zhijia Zheng. The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction and an undertaking as to damages, alleging that Mr Ross had breached confidence by retaining and potentially disclosing documents inadvertently disclosed to the defendants by the SFO. The documents in question were obtained under statutory secrecy, contained private and confidential information, and risked being used contrary to the statutory provisions.

The legal issues the court needed to address included whether the SFO should be required to proceed on notice and if the SFO's application could be dealt with without notice. The court also needed to determine if the SFO's application for an interlocutory injunction and an undertaking as to damages was justified. In deciding these issues, the court considered the potential undue delay or prejudice to the SFO if it were required to proceed on notice, as well as the risk of harm posed by the inadvertent disclosure of confidential information.

The court determined that requiring the SFO to proceed on notice would cause undue delay or prejudice to it, and therefore, the application could properly be dealt with without notice. The court was satisfied with the SFO's undertaking as to damages and formalised the orders made on 29 July and 4 August 2020. The court ordered Jami-Lee Ross to destroy and delete any and all copies of the documents numbered SFO00026724 and SFO00026725 in his power, possession, or control, and to refrain from referring to, making any use of, or further disclosing those documents. The court also noted that Mr Ross was reported to have claimed to have been leaked information consistent with the inadvertently disclosed documents, which he planned to table in Parliament.

In conclusion, the court granted the SFO's application for an interlocutory injunction and an undertaking as to damages, ordering Jami-Lee Ross to destroy and delete the confidential documents and refrain from using or disclosing them further. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining the confidentiality of information obtained under statutory secrecy and the need to protect such information from unauthorised disclosure.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established