Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Brick & Block Company Pty Ltd (in Liq) [2016] NSWSC 1277

Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Brick & Block Company Pty Ltd (in Liq) [2016] NSWSC 1277

Having balanced the competing interests—preserving confidentiality of sensitive commercial information against the public interest in open justice and fairness to all parties—the court held that limited suppression orders excluding Iyad Rafidi (as a competitor) should be made necessary to protect Boral’s confidential information, even if that restricts Mr Rafidi’s ability to respond fully.

Parties
Applicant: Boral Masonry Limited; Plaintiff / Cross Defendant: Commonwealth Bank of Australia; First Defendant: Brick & Block Company Pty Ltd (in liquidation); Second Defendant / Cross Claimant: Iyad Rafidi
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Application (procedural Ruling) / Interlocutory (before Trial)
Outcome
Limited suppression orders made in accordance with paragraphs 8 to 11 and 13 to 15 of Boral's amended notice of motion; prayers 1 to 3 stood over to the trial judge; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Confidential Information, Suppression Orders, Procedural Fairness
Equity Practice and Procedure Commercial Law Expert Evidence Confidential Information Suppression Orders Procedural Fairness

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Boral Masonry Limited

Applicant

Commonwealth Bank of Australia

Plaintiff / Cross Defendant

Brick & Block Company Pty Ltd (in liquidation)

First Defendant

Iyad Rafidi

Second Defendant / Cross Claimant

Procedural Posture

Application (procedural Ruling) / Interlocutory (before Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to exclude Commonwealth Bank of Australia from relying on expert report
  2. 2 Whether to make suppression orders regarding expert report and underlying documents
  3. 3 How to balance confidentiality, open justice, and fairness to parties

Ratio Decidendi

Having balanced the competing interests—preserving confidentiality of sensitive commercial information against the public interest in open justice and fairness to all parties—the court held that limited suppression orders excluding Iyad Rafidi (as a competitor) should be made necessary to protect Boral’s confidential information, even if that restricts Mr Rafidi’s ability to respond fully.

Court Disposition

Limited suppression orders made in accordance with paragraphs 8 to 11 and 13 to 15 of Boral's amended notice of motion; prayers 1 to 3 stood over to the trial judge; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Suppression orders made in terms of paragraphs 8 to 11 and 13 to 15 of the amended notice of motion filed 12 September 2016.
  • Prayers 1 to 3 of the amended notice of motion are stood over for consideration before the trial judge.