AGL Energy Ltd v Hammond; Hammond v AGL Energy Ltd [2015] NSWLC 15
The first respondent's amended statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action because no actionable breach of privacy was pleaded in respect of information sought or used about him, and no viable negligence claim was pleaded: the damage alleged was distress or mental harm without any recognised psychiatric illness and no duty of care was arguable under the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW). The second respondent's negligence claim was also untenable for the same mental harm and duty reasons. However, because superior courts have left open the possible development of a common law privacy cause of action, and the second respondent alleged that her own address was unlawfully...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 08 July 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Notices of Motion to Strike Out Amended Statement of Claim, Seek Security for Costs, and Set Aside Subpoena for Production
- Outcome
- The amended statement of claim was struck out as to the first respondent. The second respondent's negligence claim was struck out, but her breach of privacy claim was not struck out. The application for a stay unless security for costs was provided was refused. The application to set aside the subpoena was refused.
- Legal Topics
- ['strike Out Application' 'reasonable Cause of Action' 'breach of Privacy' 'pure Mental Harm' 'security for Costs' 'subpoena for Production' 'abuse of Process']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Civil / Notices of Motion to Strike Out Amended Statement of Claim, Seek Security for Costs, and Set Aside Subpoena for Production
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the amended statement of claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action for breach of privacy by the first respondent and the second respondent.' 'Whether the amended statement of claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action in negligence by either respondent for distress or mental harm.' "Whether the second respondent's remaining breach of privacy claim should be stayed unless security for costs was provided." 'Whether the subpoena for production issued to the second applicant should be set aside as an abuse of process or for lack of relevance.']
Ratio Decidendi
The first respondent's amended statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action because no actionable breach of privacy was pleaded in respect of information sought or used about him, and no viable negligence claim was pleaded: the damage alleged was distress or mental harm without any recognised psychiatric illness and no duty of care was arguable under the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW). The second respondent's negligence claim was also untenable for the same mental harm and duty reasons. However, because superior courts have left open the possible development of a common law privacy cause of action, and the second respondent alleged that her own address was unlawfully...
Court Disposition
The amended statement of claim was struck out as to the first respondent. The second respondent's negligence claim was struck out, but her breach of privacy claim was not struck out. The application for a stay unless security for costs was provided was refused. The application to set aside the subpoena was refused.
Orders
- ['In so far as the first respondent is concerned, the amended statement of claim is struck out.' 'In so far as the second respondent is concerned, in so far as her claim is brought in negligence, the amended statement of claim is struck out.' "In so far as the notice motion to strike out the amended statement of...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment