Smiths Detection (Australia) Pty Ltd v Basham [2020] NSWSC 500

Smiths Detection (Australia) Pty Ltd v Basham [2020] NSWSC 500

The plaintiff failed to establish that its case was impaired by the deletion, as it was not demonstrated that deleted documents were unrecoverable or could not be reproduced. Corporate defendants are entitled to defend, as they were not shown to be responsible for Basham's conduct and were not pleaded to be vicariously liable.

Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: Smiths Detection (Australia) Pty Ltd; First Defendant/respondent: Mr Scott Basham; Second Defendant/respondent: Rapiscan Australia Pty Ltd; Third Defendant/respondent: Rapiscan Systems Pte Ltd; Fourth Defendant/respondent: SX Technologies Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion to Strike Out Defences / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Plaintiff's motion to strike out the defendants’ defences rejected; motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
Pleadings, Strike Out Application, Abuse of Process, Confidential Information, Breach of Contract, Fiduciary Duty
Civil Procedure Equity Pleadings Strike Out Application Abuse of Process Confidential Information Breach of Contract Fiduciary Duty

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Smiths Detection (Australia) Pty Ltd

Plaintiff/applicant

Mr Scott Basham

First Defendant/respondent

Rapiscan Australia Pty Ltd

Second Defendant/respondent

Rapiscan Systems Pte Ltd

Third Defendant/respondent

SX Technologies Pty Ltd

Fourth Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion to Strike Out Defences / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deletion of confidential documents by the first defendant impaired the plaintiff's ability to pursue its claim
  2. 2 Whether defendants' defences should be struck out due to abuse of process from deletion
  3. 3 Whether the corporate defendants should be held responsible for the first defendant's conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to establish that its case was impaired by the deletion, as it was not demonstrated that deleted documents were unrecoverable or could not be reproduced. Corporate defendants are entitled to defend, as they were not shown to be responsible for Basham's conduct and were not pleaded to be vicariously liable.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's motion to strike out the defendants’ defences rejected; motion dismissed.