Drivetime Radio Australia Pty Ltd v Pivotal Creative Solutions Pty Ltd & Anor [2010] NSWSC 1103

Drivetime Radio Australia Pty Ltd v Pivotal Creative Solutions Pty Ltd & Anor [2010] NSWSC 1103

The plaintiff and its solicitor used the September Report for a collateral purpose—namely seeking a public retraction from Footprints for commercial advantage—contrary to the legal principle restricting the use of discovered or subpoenaed material to the proceedings only. Their conduct amounted to contempt of court.

Parties
Plaintiff: Drivetime Radio Australia Pty Ltd; First Defendant/1st Applicant: Pivotal Creative Solutions Pty Ltd t/as Broadcast GP; Second Defendant/2nd Applicant: Helen Ann Whelan; 1st Respondent: Somerville & Co; 2nd Respondent: Benjamin Hemsworth
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Separate Question / Application for Contempt of Court and Costs Order
Outcome
Contempt of court proved against plaintiff and solicitor; solicitor ordered to pay defendant's indemnity costs personally.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Misuse of Discovered/subpoenaed Documents, Commercial Law, Indemnity Costs
Equity Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Misuse of Discovered/subpoenaed Documents Commercial Law Indemnity Costs

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Drivetime Radio Australia Pty Ltd

Plaintiff

Pivotal Creative Solutions Pty Ltd t/as Broadcast GP

First Defendant/1st Applicant

Helen Ann Whelan

Second Defendant/2nd Applicant

Somerville & Co

1st Respondent

Benjamin Hemsworth

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Separate Question / Application for Contempt of Court and Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff and its solicitor used a discovered/subpoenaed document for a purpose unconnected with the proceedings, amounting to contempt of court
  2. 2 Whether the solicitor should personally pay indemnity costs for contempt

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff and its solicitor used the September Report for a collateral purpose—namely seeking a public retraction from Footprints for commercial advantage—contrary to the legal principle restricting the use of discovered or subpoenaed material to the proceedings only. Their conduct amounted to contempt of court.

Court Disposition

Contempt of court proved against plaintiff and solicitor; solicitor ordered to pay defendant's indemnity costs personally.

Orders

  • Benjamin Hemsworth pay the Defendants' costs of and incidental to the Notice of Motion filed on 11.06.10, such costs to be paid forthwith and to be taxed, if not agreed, on the indemnity basis, and that such costs not be recoverable as solicitor/client costs by Mr Hemsworth from the Plaintiff.