Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd v Ajaka [2022] NSWCA 91

Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd v Ajaka [2022] NSWCA 91

Because the Respondents had already commenced proceedings against the Applicants and named them as defendants, the Applicants were not prospective defendants within r 5.3 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). The Court therefore had no power to make the preliminary discovery orders, and the interim injunction and other orders tied to those preliminary discovery orders could not stand.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Concerning Preliminary Discovery and Interim Injunctive Orders / Court of Appeal; Leave to Appeal Granted and Appeal Allowed
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; orders 1 to 9 of Rothman J entered on 20 May 2022 set aside; paragraphs 14 to 20 of the Respondents' summons dismissed; costs ordered in favour of the Appellants.
Legal Topics
['preliminary Discovery' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) R 5.3' 'prospective Defendant' 'interim Injunction' 'leave to Appeal']
['civil Procedure'] ['preliminary Discovery' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) R 5.3' 'prospective Defendant' 'interim Injunction' 'leave to Appeal']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Concerning Preliminary Discovery and Interim Injunctive Orders / Court of Appeal; Leave to Appeal Granted and Appeal Allowed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether preliminary discovery pursuant to r 5.3 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) is available against a person who is already a defendant in proceedings brought by the applicant for preliminary discovery.' 'Whether the preliminary discovery orders and associated interim injunctive and procedural orders made at first instance were supported by power or jurisdiction.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Respondents had already commenced proceedings against the Applicants and named them as defendants, the Applicants were not prospective defendants within r 5.3 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). The Court therefore had no power to make the preliminary discovery orders, and the interim injunction and other orders tied to those preliminary discovery orders could not stand.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; orders 1 to 9 of Rothman J entered on 20 May 2022 set aside; paragraphs 14 to 20 of the Respondents' summons dismissed; costs ordered in favour of the Appellants.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'Direct that the Applicants, now Appellants, file a notice of appeal in the form of the draft notice of appeal.' 'Appeal allowed.' 'Set aside orders 1 to 9 of Rothman J entered on 20 May 2022.' "Dismiss paragraphs 14 to 20 of the Respondents' summons filed in the Common Law Division on 13...