Cleary v Kocatekin & Seven Network (Operations) Ltd [2012] NSWSC 692

Cleary v Kocatekin & Seven Network (Operations) Ltd [2012] NSWSC 692

Although Seven, through Mr Seymour, was aware that there was probably a contract between the plaintiff and the first defendant and that it probably restricted what they could say about construction of the house, the evidence did not establish that Seven knew sufficient of the terms or was recklessly indifferent or wilfully blind as to those terms. The evidence showed Seven was intent on not breaching whatever agreement was in place rather than inducing the first defendant to breach it, so the inducement claim against Seven failed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Equity Division Proceedings Seeking Damages for Breach of Contract and an Injunction Restraining Publication; Claim Against Second Defendant for Inducing Breach of Contract / Urgent Final Hearing; Principal Judgment
Outcome
Claim against second defendant of inducing a breach of contract dismissed; injunction continued until further order date and matter listed for further directions and/or argument.
Legal Topics
['restraint on Publication' 'inducing Breach of Contract' 'confidentiality Clause' 'non Disparagement Clause' 'knowledge of Contract' 'reckless Indifference' 'wilful Blindness']
['injunctions' 'contract Law' 'tort Law' 'equity'] ['restraint on Publication' 'inducing Breach of Contract' 'confidentiality Clause' 'non Disparagement Clause' 'knowledge of Contract' 'reckless Indifference' 'wilful Blindness']

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 Proceedings Seeking Damages for Breach of Contract and an Injunction Restraining Publication; Claim Against Second Defendant for Inducing Breach of Contract / Urgent Final Hearing; Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Seven Network (Operations) Ltd induced the first defendant to breach the Deed of Release by disparaging the plaintiff.' 'Whether Seven knew of the contract and sufficient of its terms to know that the conduct sought to be induced would be a breach of contract.' 'Whether Seven was recklessly indifferent or wilfully blind as to the terms of the Deed.' 'Whether the injunction restraining publication should continue.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although Seven, through Mr Seymour, was aware that there was probably a contract between the plaintiff and the first defendant and that it probably restricted what they could say about construction of the house, the evidence did not establish that Seven knew sufficient of the terms or was recklessly indifferent or wilfully blind as to those terms. The evidence showed Seven was intent on not breaching whatever agreement was in place rather than inducing the first defendant to breach it, so the inducement claim against Seven failed.

Court Disposition

Claim against second defendant of inducing a breach of contract dismissed; injunction continued until further order date and matter listed for further directions and/or argument.

Orders

  • ['The claim against the second defendant of inducement of breach of contract is dismissed.' 'The injunction is continued until 5pm on 17 July 2012.' 'The matter is listed for further directions and/or argument at 10am on 17 July 2012.']