Australian Leisure and Hospitality Group Pty Ltd & Anor v Dr Judith Stubbs & Anor [2012] NSWSC 215

Australian Leisure and Hospitality Group Pty Ltd & Anor v Dr Judith Stubbs & Anor [2012] NSWSC 215

There is a real and sensible possibility that Dr Stubbs, having previously received confidential commercial information from the plaintiffs in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence, could misuse that information, even inadvertently or subconsciously, in her role as the Council's expert in the pending litigation. An undertaking is insufficient to eliminate this risk, and the appropriate remedy is to restrain Dr Stubbs from acting as an expert witness for the Council in relation to the proceedings.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Australian Leisure and Hospitality Group Pty Ltd; Second Plaintiff: Martin Morris & Jones Pty Ltd; First Defendant: Dr Judith Stubbs; Second Defendant: Shoalhaven City Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Post Hearing Reasons for Interlocutory Orders
Outcome
Orders restraining the first defendant from disclosing confidential information of the plaintiffs and acting as an expert for the second defendant in the relevant proceedings were made.
Legal Topics
Breach of Confidence, Expert Witnesses, Conflict of Interest, Interlocutory Injunctions
Equity Confidential Information Injunctions Breach of Confidence Expert Witnesses Conflict of Interest Interlocutory Injunctions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Leisure and Hospitality Group Pty Ltd

First Plaintiff

Martin Morris & Jones Pty Ltd

Second Plaintiff

Dr Judith Stubbs

First Defendant

Shoalhaven City Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Post Hearing Reasons for Interlocutory Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction restraining the first defendant from acting as an expert for the opposing party due to risk of misuse of confidential information

Ratio Decidendi

There is a real and sensible possibility that Dr Stubbs, having previously received confidential commercial information from the plaintiffs in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence, could misuse that information, even inadvertently or subconsciously, in her role as the Council's expert in the pending litigation. An undertaking is insufficient to eliminate this risk, and the appropriate remedy is to restrain Dr Stubbs from acting as an expert witness for the Council in relation to the proceedings.

Court Disposition

Orders restraining the first defendant from disclosing confidential information of the plaintiffs and acting as an expert for the second defendant in the relevant proceedings were made.

Orders

  • First defendant (Dr Stubbs) restrained from disclosing the plaintiffs' confidential information to the Council or its representatives.
  • First defendant restrained from assisting the Council as an expert witness in the Land and Environment Court proceedings.