23 Apr 2021
The confidentiality order under r 5 was no longer justified once the company entered liquidation; the public interest in open justice outweighs the asserted commercial sensitivity in respect of documents on the court file, including amounts claimed by secured creditors, and the media applicant is therefore permitted access to all documents on the court file.
15 Mar 2021
The extension of time was refused because the October 2020 request was correctly characterised as essentially the same as the earlier refused September 2020 request, amounted to an abuse of process, and any appeal would have been hopeless; accordingly the interests of justice required refusal of the extension.
22 Sept 2020
Confidentiality orders were declined because the court found the documents were largely historical or draft, much of the material was public or superseded, COVID-19 materially undermined the commercial relevance of pre-COVID projections, and QAC did not prove real, specific adverse commercial impact sufficient to justify departing from open justice; however the court directed the documents not be available for public or media inspection to protect any residual commercial sensitivity.
3 Jul 2020
The Court held that the specific adverse consequences identified by Stuff's owner (risk to staff, advertisers, investors and recovery prospects) justified a limited departure from open justice; suppression of the redacted material (and of this judgment) was therefore ordered until 3 December 2020 to allow the new owner a reasonable period of 'clear air' to implement strategy and stabilise the business.
9 Sept 2013
The plaintiffs and defendants failed to demonstrate the exceptional, compelling or very special circumstances required to sustain a general non-publication order of the parties' names; however, specific suppression was justified to protect the parties' young children from identification and to prevent publication of commercially sensitive financial information of the third defendant company, so the blanket order was varied accordingly.
18 Oct 2005
The Court granted plaintiffs' applications in part: the booking diary is discoverable and an unedited copy is to be disclosed to the defendant's solicitors, the defendant's CEO and the plaintiffs' expert limited to details of lost bookings for 24 July 2003 to 4 November 2003; ordered production of specified parts of the insurer/indemnifier file; ordered targeted particular discovery of the source material provided to the defendant's expert and trading/financial and operational records relating solely to the helicopter for defined periods to allow testing of the loss of profits claim; set dead…