X v Y & Z [2017] NSWSC 1214
The defendants had been served in accordance with the Court's orders and the Court had jurisdiction over them notwithstanding their non-submission; equity could grant in personam injunctions against properly served foreign defendants with worldwide effect; the defendants' withholding or suspension measures were insufficient to prevent access to the confidential offending material; and the plaintiff's interests required continuation, refinement and expansion of interlocutory injunctions pending final hearing, together with a suppression order justified by the public interest.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 08 September 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Ex Parte Application for Interlocutory Injunctions and Suppression/non Publication Orders / Interlocutory Application for Continuation, Refinement and Expansion of Orders Previously Made Ex Parte
- Outcome
- Further interlocutory orders made against the defendants everywhere in the world until 15 September 2017 or earlier determination, with the matter to return before the duty judge on 13 September 2017 for allocation of a final hearing date.
- Legal Topics
- ['foreign Defendants' 'service Outside Australia' 'in Personam Equitable Jurisdiction' 'publication of Confidential Information' 'worldwide Injunctions' 'court Suppression & Non Publication Orders Act 2010 (nsw)']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Ex Parte Application for Interlocutory Injunctions and Suppression/non Publication Orders / Interlocutory Application for Continuation, Refinement and Expansion of Orders Previously Made Ex Parte
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the Court had jurisdiction to continue and expand interlocutory injunctions against foreign defendants who did not voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction.' "Whether service of the originating process and prior orders had been satisfactorily effected in accordance with the Court's orders." "Whether the defendants' measures of withholding or suspending accounts were sufficient to protect the plaintiff's confidential information." 'Whether the Court could make in personam orders restraining publication of offending material outside New South Wales or everywhere in the world.' 'Whether a suppression order should be made under the Court Suppression & Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW).']
Ratio Decidendi
The defendants had been served in accordance with the Court's orders and the Court had jurisdiction over them notwithstanding their non-submission; equity could grant in personam injunctions against properly served foreign defendants with worldwide effect; the defendants' withholding or suspension measures were insufficient to prevent access to the confidential offending material; and the plaintiff's interests required continuation, refinement and expansion of interlocutory injunctions pending final hearing, together with a suppression order justified by the public interest.
Court Disposition
Further interlocutory orders made against the defendants everywhere in the world until 15 September 2017 or earlier determination, with the matter to return before the duty judge on 13 September 2017 for allocation of a final hearing date.
Orders
- ['The interlocutory injunctions previously made were continued, refined and expanded against the defendants everywhere in the world.' 'Further orders were made until 15 September 2017 or earlier determination of the proceedings.' 'The matter was to be brought back for mention before the duty judge on 13 September...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment