Weston v Publishing and Broadcasting Limited [2010] NSWSC 1350

Weston v Publishing and Broadcasting Limited [2010] NSWSC 1350

After inspecting the three passages identified by the plaintiffs, the Court was satisfied that the proposed orders were appropriate to dispose of both motions, whether or not the CPH defendants' submissions about the scope of continuing confidentiality were accepted. It was therefore unnecessary to decide whether the CPH defendants could depart from paragraph [38] of the earlier reasons. Because the CPH defendants were only put squarely on notice just before the hearing that the funding agreements themselves were not part of the relevant affidavits, there should be no order as to costs on their motion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Consequential Orders / Orders on Notices of Motion to Vary Confidentiality Orders After Reasons Published on 5 November 2010
Outcome
Confidentiality orders varied to allow access to the listed documents subject to masking of three specified passages; plaintiffs ordered to provide documents and to pay the News defendants' motion costs; no costs order on the CPH defendants' motion.
Legal Topics
['confidentiality Orders' 'access to Court Documents' 'litigation Funding Material' 'costs']
['procedure' 'corporations'] ['confidentiality Orders' 'access to Court Documents' 'litigation Funding Material' 'costs']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Consequential Orders / Orders on Notices of Motion to Vary Confidentiality Orders After Reasons Published on 5 November 2010

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What orders should be made to give effect to the earlier decision partially relaxing confidentiality constraints affecting four affidavits of Mr Weston and two documents containing counsel's submissions." 'Whether continuing confidentiality should be confined to three identified passages in the relevant documents.' "What costs orders should be made on the defendants' notices of motion."]

Ratio Decidendi

After inspecting the three passages identified by the plaintiffs, the Court was satisfied that the proposed orders were appropriate to dispose of both motions, whether or not the CPH defendants' submissions about the scope of continuing confidentiality were accepted. It was therefore unnecessary to decide whether the CPH defendants could depart from paragraph [38] of the earlier reasons. Because the CPH defendants were only put squarely on notice just before the hearing that the funding agreements themselves were not part of the relevant affidavits, there should be no order as to costs on their motion.

Court Disposition

Confidentiality orders varied to allow access to the listed documents subject to masking of three specified passages; plaintiffs ordered to provide documents and to pay the News defendants' motion costs; no costs order on the CPH defendants' motion.

Orders

  • ["The confidentiality orders made in respect of the documents listed in Schedule A be varied to allow full access to those documents to be granted to the parties save that the defendants shall not have access to paragraph 27 of Mr Weston's affidavit sworn 6 November 2009, the entry in the chronology on page 18 of...