Provimi Australia Pty Ltd v Hoey Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors [2008] NSWSC 863

Provimi Australia Pty Ltd v Hoey Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors [2008] NSWSC 863

There is no evidence of a real threat that Provimi's legal advisors will breach their obligation of confidence; therefore an injunction is not warranted.

Parties
Plaintiff/cross Defendant: Provimi Australia Pty Ltd; First Defendant/first Cross Claimant: Hoey Holdings Pty Ltd; Second Defendant/second Cross Claimant: Antony Hoey; Third Defendant: Kerry Ann Ruge; Intervenor: FarmCare GB Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion for Injunction / Disposition of Notice of Motion
Outcome
Notice of Motion dismissed; costs awarded to Provimi.
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Confidential Information, Anton Piller Order
Equity Injunctions Confidential Information Anton Piller Order

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Provimi Australia Pty Ltd

Plaintiff/cross Defendant

Hoey Holdings Pty Ltd

First Defendant/first Cross Claimant

Antony Hoey

Second Defendant/second Cross Claimant

Kerry Ann Ruge

Third Defendant

FarmCare GB Limited

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion for Injunction / Disposition of Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an injunction should be granted restraining legal advisors from disclosing FarmCare's confidential information obtained during inspection under an Anton Piller order

Ratio Decidendi

There is no evidence of a real threat that Provimi's legal advisors will breach their obligation of confidence; therefore an injunction is not warranted.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion dismissed; costs awarded to Provimi.

Orders

  • Notice of Motion filed by FarmCare GB Limited dismissed
  • FarmCare GB Limited to pay Provimi Australia Pty Ltd's costs of the Notice of Motion