Brennock v Brennock [2005] NSWSC 1058

Brennock v Brennock [2005] NSWSC 1058

The affidavit contained material that could be characterised as confidential and commercially sensitive, and preventing the plaintiff from possessing a paper copy would not impede preparation of his case because he could read it, discuss it with his lawyers, and his lawyers could obtain factual and expert evidence by other means. The requested restrictions, including the restriction on possession of a paper copy, should therefore be imposed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Proceedings Under the Family Provision Act 1982 / Defendant's Notice of Motion for Restrictions on the Availability of Certain Affidavit Evidence
Outcome
Defendant's motion granted; the plaintiff was not to have a paper copy of the confidential affidavit, and costs of the motion were ordered to be costs in the proceedings.
Legal Topics
['restricted Disclosure of Affidavit Evidence' 'confidential and Commercially Sensitive Information' 'access to Paper Copies of Affidavit Evidence' 'costs in the Proceedings']
['procedure' 'equity' 'family Provision' 'evidence'] ['restricted Disclosure of Affidavit Evidence' 'confidential and Commercially Sensitive Information' 'access to Paper Copies of Affidavit Evidence' 'costs in the Proceedings']

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

Proceedings Under the Family Provision Act 1982 / Defendant's Notice of Motion for Restrictions on the Availability of Certain Affidavit Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether restrictions should be imposed on the availability of an affidavit containing material said to be confidential and commercially sensitive.' 'Whether the plaintiff should be allowed to have a paper copy of the affidavit in his possession.']

Ratio Decidendi

The affidavit contained material that could be characterised as confidential and commercially sensitive, and preventing the plaintiff from possessing a paper copy would not impede preparation of his case because he could read it, discuss it with his lawyers, and his lawyers could obtain factual and expert evidence by other means. The requested restrictions, including the restriction on possession of a paper copy, should therefore be imposed.

Court Disposition

Defendant's motion granted; the plaintiff was not to have a paper copy of the confidential affidavit, and costs of the motion were ordered to be costs in the proceedings.

Orders

  • ["Order as in prayer 1 of the defendant's notice of motion dated 15 August 2005." 'Order that costs of the motion be costs in the proceedings.']