AMFM Constructions Pty Ltd v Boreal Holdings Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 1091

AMFM Constructions Pty Ltd v Boreal Holdings Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 1091

The Court intervened because the disputed credit report concerned the subject matter of the proceedings, was alleged on the plaintiff's evidence to be inaccurate and damaging to its business credit, and the defendant was using the report to pressure the plaintiff while Credit Advantage Limited declined to act. By analogy with federal legislation concerning such information, it was appropriate to order the defendant to require removal of the material and to notify the credit agency of possible further court action.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Equity Division Application Concerning Credit Report and Injunctive Relief / Application Heard; Orders Made
Outcome
Orders made.
Legal Topics
['credit Reports' 'injunctions Restraining Publication' 'disputed Debt' 'credit Reference Agencies']
['consumer Credit' 'equity' 'defamation' 'privacy'] ['credit Reports' 'injunctions Restraining Publication' 'disputed Debt' 'credit Reference Agencies']

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

Equity Division Application Concerning Credit Report and Injunctive Relief / Application Heard; Orders Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should intervene by injunction where a corporation complains that an allegedly false overdue account report is being published by a credit reference agency.' "Whether the defendant should be ordered to take steps to have the disputed credit information removed from Credit Advantage Limited's database."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court intervened because the disputed credit report concerned the subject matter of the proceedings, was alleged on the plaintiff's evidence to be inaccurate and damaging to its business credit, and the defendant was using the report to pressure the plaintiff while Credit Advantage Limited declined to act. By analogy with federal legislation concerning such information, it was appropriate to order the defendant to require removal of the material and to notify the credit agency of possible further court action.

Court Disposition

Orders made.

Orders

  • ['The defendant was to tell Credit Advantage Limited by 3:00 pm on 15 November 2001 that it was to remove the material from its database.' 'The defendant was to tell Credit Advantage Limited that, if it did not remove the material, the defendant had been ordered to attend court at 9:50 am the next morning and apply...