Kwok v Thang [1999] NSWSC 1034

Kwok v Thang [1999] NSWSC 1034

There were serious questions to be tried as to breach of confidence, deceit and intimidation, the prior Hong Kong newspaper article did not necessarily destroy confidentiality in the videotape itself, and the balance of justice favoured maintaining the injunction because dissemination of the videotape could cause substantial damage to the plaintiff while the plaintiff could meet his undertaking as to damages. For disclosure of the existence and whereabouts of copies, interrogatories under Pt 24 of the Supreme Court Rules were the appropriate procedure because the information was closely related to the claims and that procedure regulated any privilege objection.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 October 1999
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceeding Seeking Injunctive and Ancillary Relief for Alleged Breach of Confidence, Deceit and Intimidation Concerning a Videotape / Interlocutory Application to Continue an Ex Parte Injunction and Obtain Disclosure of the Existence and Whereabouts of Videotapes
Outcome
Injunction restraining copying or use of the videotape continued until further order; relief concerning disclosure to proceed by specific interrogatories; costs submissions stood over.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunction' 'breach of Confidence' 'disclosure Orders' 'interrogatories' 'privilege Against Self Incrimination' 'deceit' 'intimidation']
['equity' 'practice and Procedure' 'torts'] ['interlocutory Injunction' 'breach of Confidence' 'disclosure Orders' 'interrogatories' 'privilege Against Self Incrimination' 'deceit' 'intimidation']

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 Proceeding Seeking Injunctive and Ancillary Relief for Alleged Breach of Confidence, Deceit and Intimidation Concerning a Videotape / Interlocutory Application to Continue an Ex Parte Injunction and Obtain Disclosure of the Existence and Whereabouts of Videotapes

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was a serious question to be tried that publication or dealing with the videotape would constitute breach of confidence.' 'Whether publication of a newspaper description of the videotape destroyed any obligation of confidentiality.' 'Whether there was a serious question to be tried in deceit arising from an implied representation of privacy when the plaintiff entered the hotel room.' 'Whether there was a serious question to be tried in intimidation based on threats to release the videotape unless payment was made.' 'Whether the balance of justice favoured continuing the interlocutory injunction.' 'Whether the plaintiff should obtain disclosure by affidavit of the number and whereabouts of copies of the videotape, or whether interrogatories under Pt 24 of the Supreme Court Rules were more appropriate.']

Ratio Decidendi

There were serious questions to be tried as to breach of confidence, deceit and intimidation, the prior Hong Kong newspaper article did not necessarily destroy confidentiality in the videotape itself, and the balance of justice favoured maintaining the injunction because dissemination of the videotape could cause substantial damage to the plaintiff while the plaintiff could meet his undertaking as to damages. For disclosure of the existence and whereabouts of copies, interrogatories under Pt 24 of the Supreme Court Rules were the appropriate procedure because the information was closely related to the claims and that procedure regulated any privilege objection.

Court Disposition

Injunction restraining copying or use of the videotape continued until further order; relief concerning disclosure to proceed by specific interrogatories; costs submissions stood over.

Orders

  • ['The injunction first ordered on 30 September 1999 was continued until further order, with amendment to identify alternate possible venues for the hotel encounter.' 'The plaintiff was directed to prepare draft interrogatories and draft orders concerning disclosure of the existence and whereabouts of the videotape...