P Dawson Nominees Pty Ltd (ACN 004 743 408) v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (No 3) [2009] FCA 779

P Dawson Nominees Pty Ltd (ACN 004 743 408) v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (No 3) [2009] FCA 779

The confidential material established the existence and identity of an informer or informers to ASIC other than Mr Cummins, and ASIC discharged its evidentiary onus to show that the information was provided voluntarily and confidentially with the requisite character of confidence. Some documents could be produced without objection or in redacted form because Mr Cummins' identity had been disclosed and further redaction could prevent identification of other informers. Documents 2, 3, 33 and 34 remained protected because inspection would tend to disclose protected informers; document 17 should be only partly redacted. The forty-one transcripts should not be produced because, even with...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion Seeking Leave to Inspect and Copy Documents Produced Under Subpoena; Public Interest Immunity Claim / Further Hearing of Applicants' Motion Filed on 16 January 2009, Following Earlier Full Court Decision and Ruling on Abuse of Process Objection
Outcome
Applicants' motion granted in part as to certain documents; ASIC's public interest immunity claim upheld for documents 2, 3, 33 and 34 and all forty-one transcripts; further hearing adjourned for submissions on consequential orders.
Legal Topics
['subpoena to Produce' 'public Interest Immunity' 'disclosure of Informers' 'redaction and Masking of Documents' 'inspection of Documents Produced Under Subpoena' 'protected Disclosures Under Pt 9.4 AAA of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth)']
['practice and Procedure' 'evidence' 'corporations'] ['subpoena to Produce' 'public Interest Immunity' 'disclosure of Informers' 'redaction and Masking of Documents' 'inspection of Documents Produced Under Subpoena' 'protected Disclosures Under Pt 9.4 AAA of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth)']

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

Notice of Motion Seeking Leave to Inspect and Copy Documents Produced Under Subpoena; Public Interest Immunity Claim / Further Hearing of Applicants' Motion Filed on 16 January 2009, Following Earlier Full Court Decision and Ruling on Abuse of Process Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether documents and transcripts produced by ASIC pursuant to subpoena were protected from production and inspection on the ground of public interest immunity because inspection might disclose the identity of an informer or informers to ASIC.' 'Whether documents and transcripts could be redacted or masked so that disclosure would not identify, or convey a shrewd idea of the identity of, an informer or informers.' "Whether the public interest in protecting the identity of informers was outweighed by the applicants' interest in access to relevant evidence for the conduct of the civil proceeding."]

Ratio Decidendi

The confidential material established the existence and identity of an informer or informers to ASIC other than Mr Cummins, and ASIC discharged its evidentiary onus to show that the information was provided voluntarily and confidentially with the requisite character of confidence. Some documents could be produced without objection or in redacted form because Mr Cummins' identity had been disclosed and further redaction could prevent identification of other informers. Documents 2, 3, 33 and 34 remained protected because inspection would tend to disclose protected informers; document 17 should be only partly redacted. The forty-one transcripts should not be produced because, even with...

Court Disposition

Applicants' motion granted in part as to certain documents; ASIC's public interest immunity claim upheld for documents 2, 3, 33 and 34 and all forty-one transcripts; further hearing adjourned for submissions on consequential orders.

Orders

  • ["The further hearing of the applicants' motion filed on 16 January 2009 is adjourned to 29 July 2009 to enable the parties to make submissions as to the orders which should be made consequent upon the reasons for judgment published this day."]