BT (Australasia) Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales & Anor (No 6) [1998] FCA 293

BT (Australasia) Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales & Anor (No 6) [1998] FCA 293

BT was not entitled to the strict confidentiality regime it sought against the State because it adduced no evidence that the relevant documents were sufficiently commercially sensitive to warrant greater protection than the existing regime, and no evidence of a real risk that State officers or agents would divulge confidential information to Telstra or another competitor. However, a limited order was appropriate to guard against a slight risk of inadvertent disclosure to Telstra, and because BT's only basis for withholding the documents was its claim for a stricter regime, the State was entitled to unmasked versions of the Attachment B documents.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 April 1998
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceeding Involving Discovery and Confidentiality Disputes / Interlocutory Motions Concerning Bt's Proposed Confidentiality Regime and the State's Motion for Unmasked Discovered Documents
Outcome
BT's paragraph 6 motion was dismissed as between BT and the State except for a limited non-disclosure order; the State's amended motion for unmasked documents was granted; BT was ordered to pay the State's costs on and from 27 February 1998 for the relevant motions.
Legal Topics
['confidentiality Regime for Discovered Documents' 'commercial Sensitivity of Discovered Documents' 'masked Documents' 'access to Discovered Documents' 'inadvertent Disclosure to Litigation Parties']
['civil Procedure' 'discovery' 'confidentiality' 'costs'] ['confidentiality Regime for Discovered Documents' 'commercial Sensitivity of Discovered Documents' 'masked Documents' 'access to Discovered Documents' 'inadvertent Disclosure to Litigation Parties']

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

Civil Proceeding Involving Discovery and Confidentiality Disputes / Interlocutory Motions Concerning Bt's Proposed Confidentiality Regime and the State's Motion for Unmasked Discovered Documents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether BT should obtain a stricter confidentiality regime against the State for documents asserted to contain confidential business information.' 'Whether BT should provide the State with unmasked versions of documents identified in Attachment B to the report of the Honourable J Brownie QC dated 27 February 1998.' "Whether BT should pay the State's costs of the relevant motions."]

Ratio Decidendi

BT was not entitled to the strict confidentiality regime it sought against the State because it adduced no evidence that the relevant documents were sufficiently commercially sensitive to warrant greater protection than the existing regime, and no evidence of a real risk that State officers or agents would divulge confidential information to Telstra or another competitor. However, a limited order was appropriate to guard against a slight risk of inadvertent disclosure to Telstra, and because BT's only basis for withholding the documents was its claim for a stricter regime, the State was entitled to unmasked versions of the Attachment B documents.

Court Disposition

BT's paragraph 6 motion was dismissed as between BT and the State except for a limited non-disclosure order; the State's amended motion for unmasked documents was granted; BT was ordered to pay the State's costs on and from 27 February 1998 for the relevant motions.

Orders

  • ["As between BT Australasia Pty Ltd and British Telecommunications plc and the State of New South Wales, paragraph 6 of BT's Notice of Motion filed on 19 March 1998 be dismissed." 'BT provide to the State unmasked versions of the documents identified in attachment B to the report of the Honourable J Brownie QC dated...