Streetscape Projects (Australia) Pty Ltd v City of Sydney (No 2) [2013] NSWCA 240

Streetscape Projects (Australia) Pty Ltd v City of Sydney (No 2) [2013] NSWCA 240

The Court of Appeal held that the primary judge erred in failing to specifically identify the confidential information forming the basis of the alleged equitable duty of confidence, and in prejudicially excluding a defence pleading and relevant evidence. There was no legal or factual misapprehension justifying setting aside or varying the earlier judgment, and a retrial on the issue of confidentiality and alleged breach was required. The appeal was allowed in part, consequential orders made, and costs allocated accordingly.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Appellate / Consequential Orders After Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; Cross-Appeal dismissed; consequential orders made; case remitted for retrial of equitable duty of confidence issues; costs disposed as stated in orders.
Legal Topics
['equitable Duty of Confidence' 'misapprehension of Law' 'misapprehension of Fact' 'scope of Remitter' 'costs' 'variation and Setting Aside of Orders']
['equity' 'civil Procedure' 'commercial Law'] ['equitable Duty of Confidence' 'misapprehension of Law' 'misapprehension of Fact' 'scope of Remitter' 'costs' 'variation and Setting Aside of Orders']

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

Appellate / Consequential Orders After Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary judge failed to identify with specificity the confidential information relevant to the equitable duty of confidence claim' 'Whether the exclusion of paragraph 17AB(b) from the Commercial List Response was erroneous and prejudicial' 'Whether a misapprehension of fact or law by the Court justified setting aside or varying the earlier judgment' 'Appropriate scope and process for remitter to the Equity Division']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the primary judge erred in failing to specifically identify the confidential information forming the basis of the alleged equitable duty of confidence, and in prejudicially excluding a defence pleading and relevant evidence. There was no legal or factual misapprehension justifying setting aside or varying the earlier judgment, and a retrial on the issue of confidentiality and alleged breach was required. The appeal was allowed in part, consequential orders made, and costs allocated accordingly.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; Cross-Appeal dismissed; consequential orders made; case remitted for retrial of equitable duty of confidence issues; costs disposed as stated in orders.

Orders

  • ['Notice of Motion filed by City of Sydney dismissed with costs' 'Cross-Appeal dismissed' 'Appeal allowed in part' 'Variation of orders 2,4,6,8 made on 2 February 2012 as set out' 'Order 21 made on 2 February 2012 set aside' 'Order 1 of 18 May 2012 varied as set out to allocate costs' 'Leave for Appellants to amend...