NHB Enterprises Pty Ltd v Corry (No 3) [2020] NSWSC 425

NHB Enterprises Pty Ltd v Corry (No 3) [2020] NSWSC 425

The court determined that the plaintiffs' version of the orders, which allows the fifth defendant to have first access to the seized devices to remove privileged or personal documents before the first defendant’s review, appropriately balances procedural fairness and the protection of legitimate confidentiality interests, and does not contravene previous court orders as the documents will be preserved in another form available for subsequent application by the applicant.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Motion / Interlocutory Ruling on Access Regime and Variation of Previous Orders
Outcome
Motion dismissed; orders made as per plaintiffs' version; costs reserved to judge hearing plaintiffs' amended notice of motion.
Legal Topics
['search Orders' 'supervised Access' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'confidentiality' 'personal Documents' 'contempt of Court' 'variation of Orders']
['practice and Procedure'] ['search Orders' 'supervised Access' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'confidentiality' 'personal Documents' 'contempt of Court' 'variation of Orders']

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

Motion / Interlocutory Ruling on Access Regime and Variation of Previous Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Should orders be made to vary the existing access regime allowing the first and fifth defendants supervised access to certain computers and devices seized under search orders?' 'Should the fifth defendant have first access before the first defendant to identify and remove privileged or personal documents unrelated to the proceedings?']

Ratio Decidendi

The court determined that the plaintiffs' version of the orders, which allows the fifth defendant to have first access to the seized devices to remove privileged or personal documents before the first defendant’s review, appropriately balances procedural fairness and the protection of legitimate confidentiality interests, and does not contravene previous court orders as the documents will be preserved in another form available for subsequent application by the applicant.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed; orders made as per plaintiffs' version; costs reserved to judge hearing plaintiffs' amended notice of motion.

Orders

  • ["The First Respondent's motion filed on 7 April 2020 is dismissed." "Costs of the Motion reserved to the judge hearing Plaintiffs' Amended Notice of Motion filed on 20 December 2019." "Plaintiffs' solicitors to make available an appointed solicitor for supervision (up to 4 hours) of First Defendant’s review of...