SG v New South Wales Crime Commission (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 600

SG v New South Wales Crime Commission (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 600

The Equity Motion could not succeed because its premise that the plaintiff's claim and the alleged contractual communications necessarily involved breach of s 80 of the Crime Commission Act 2012 (NSW) was not established. Communications forming or recording the alleged contract with the Commission were not, on that basis, information caught by the secrecy provisions. The further restraints sought against use of information and legal representatives depended on an alleged breach by JG, who was not a party, and sought substantive relief that did not advance the claims in the current proceedings and required separate proceedings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Common Law Proceeding Seeking Damages for Breach of Contract and Breach of Duty of Care / Determination and Clarification of the First Defendant's Motion Under the Court's Equitable Jurisdiction to Strike Out the Statement of Claim and Restrain Use of Information and Legal Representatives
Outcome
The first defendant's motion under the Court's equitable jurisdiction was dismissed in its entirety, with costs to the plaintiff.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Motion for Equitable Relief' 'strike Out or Dismissal of Proceedings' 'crime Commission Secrecy Provisions' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'use of Confidential Information' 'restraint on Legal Representatives']
['practice and Procedure' 'equity' 'privilege' 'confidentiality and Secrecy Obligations'] ['interlocutory Motion for Equitable Relief' 'strike Out or Dismissal of Proceedings' 'crime Commission Secrecy Provisions' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'use of Confidential Information' 'restraint on Legal Representatives']

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

Common Law Proceeding Seeking Damages for Breach of Contract and Breach of Duty of Care / Determination and Clarification of the First Defendant's Motion Under the Court's Equitable Jurisdiction to Strike Out the Statement of Claim and Restrain Use of Information and Legal Representatives

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the dismissal of the motions to dismiss the proceedings included dismissal of the motion for equitable relief' 'Whether s 80 of the Crime Commission Act 2012 (NSW) applied to information concerning the alleged contractual arrangement between SG and the Commission' "Whether the plaintiff's Statement of Claim depended upon information provided in breach of s 80 of the Crime Commission Act 2012 (NSW)" 'Whether prayers restraining the plaintiff from using information and particular legal representatives could properly be pursued by interlocutory motion in these proceedings']

Ratio Decidendi

The Equity Motion could not succeed because its premise that the plaintiff's claim and the alleged contractual communications necessarily involved breach of s 80 of the Crime Commission Act 2012 (NSW) was not established. Communications forming or recording the alleged contract with the Commission were not, on that basis, information caught by the secrecy provisions. The further restraints sought against use of information and legal representatives depended on an alleged breach by JG, who was not a party, and sought substantive relief that did not advance the claims in the current proceedings and required separate proceedings.

Court Disposition

The first defendant's motion under the Court's equitable jurisdiction was dismissed in its entirety, with costs to the plaintiff.

Orders

  • ["The motion of the first defendant, New South Wales Crime Commission, under the Court's equitable jurisdiction is dismissed in its entirety." "The first defendant shall pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to that motion."]