Missingham v Shamin [2011] NSWSC 1208

Missingham v Shamin [2011] NSWSC 1208

There is at least a seriously arguable case that the defendant's post breached the confidentiality obligations under the settlement deed and, on the balance of convenience, the contractual obligation of confidence would be defeated if an injunction were refused, while no prejudice to the defendant was shown. The application for continuing interlocutory relief is granted on modified terms.

Parties
Plaintiff: Walter Patrick Missingham; Defendant: Alex Shamin
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory (continuation of Ex Parte Injunction)
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction continued
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Confidentiality Clauses, Settlement Agreements
Equity Defamation Contract Interlocutory Injunctions Confidentiality Clauses Settlement Agreements

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Walter Patrick Missingham

Plaintiff

Alex Shamin

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory (continuation of Ex Parte Injunction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant breached the confidentiality clause of the settlement deed by publishing matters concerning the terms of settlement.
  2. 2 Whether interlocutory injunctive relief should be granted or continued, considering clean hands and balance of convenience.

Ratio Decidendi

There is at least a seriously arguable case that the defendant's post breached the confidentiality obligations under the settlement deed and, on the balance of convenience, the contractual obligation of confidence would be defeated if an injunction were refused, while no prejudice to the defendant was shown. The application for continuing interlocutory relief is granted on modified terms.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction continued

Orders

  • The defendant, by himself, his servants or agents, is restrained from disclosing or permitting to be disclosed the terms of the deed of settlement dated 7 September 2011, except as specified in the order.
  • The defendant is restrained from publishing any statement pertaining to the settlement of proceedings 2010/397452 in the Court other than as permitted by clause 8.2 of the Deed.