Haile-Michael v Konstantinidis [2012] FCA 108

Haile-Michael v Konstantinidis [2012] FCA 108

The Chief Commissioner did not establish exceptional or special circumstances warranting express confidentiality undertakings. The implied undertaking applied to the applicants, their legal advisors, Legal Centre volunteers and expert witnesses, and provided sufficient protection against use of the discovered documents other than for the purposes of the proceeding.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Proceeding Seeking Orders Pursuant to S 46 Po(4) of the Australian Human Rights Act 1986 (cth), Alleging Unlawful Discrimination Under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (cth) / Interlocutory Applications Concerning Discovery and Confidentiality Undertaking
Outcome
The Chief Commissioner's interlocutory application was dismissed, and the applicants' interlocutory application was granted in part for documents "7.00001" and "7.00002"; costs were reserved.
Legal Topics
['implied Undertaking for Discovered Documents' 'express Confidentiality Undertakings' 'racial Discrimination' 'racial Hatred']
['practice and Procedure' 'discovery' 'human Rights Discrimination'] ['implied Undertaking for Discovered Documents' 'express Confidentiality Undertakings' 'racial Discrimination' 'racial Hatred']

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

Proceeding Seeking Orders Pursuant to S 46 Po(4) of the Australian Human Rights Act 1986 (cth), Alleging Unlawful Discrimination Under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (cth) / Interlocutory Applications Concerning Discovery and Confidentiality Undertaking

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Chief Commissioner should produce the Doney report and Feltham Report for inspection without requiring signed confidentiality undertakings from the applicants, their legal advisors and those assisting them.' 'Whether special or exceptional circumstances justified requiring express confidentiality undertakings in addition to the implied undertaking governing discovered documents.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Chief Commissioner did not establish exceptional or special circumstances warranting express confidentiality undertakings. The implied undertaking applied to the applicants, their legal advisors, Legal Centre volunteers and expert witnesses, and provided sufficient protection against use of the discovered documents other than for the purposes of the proceeding.

Court Disposition

The Chief Commissioner's interlocutory application was dismissed, and the applicants' interlocutory application was granted in part for documents "7.00001" and "7.00002"; costs were reserved.

Orders

  • ["The eighth respondent's interlocutory application of 16 November 2011 is dismissed." 'Order 1 of the orders sought in the applicants\' interlocutory application of 17 November 2011 is made only insofar as it refers to documents "7.00001" and "7.00002".' 'Costs reserved.']