Australia, June 16 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement May 16:

1. This is an application by the plaintiff for orders permitting the use of certain documents, obtained by the plaintiff during her now discontinued proceedings against the defendant, for the sole purpose of prosecuting a separate claim against her former solicitors.

2. In her original claim against the defendant ("the Oil Search proceedings"), the plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that she was entitled to statutory whistleblower protections under Pt 9.4AAA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Corporations Act) and that the defendant breached those protections. Those proceedings have resolved. The plaintiff has now brought a separate claim against her former solicitors, Harmers Workplace Lawyers ("Harmers"), in which she alleges, inter alia, that Harmers failed to advise her of her entitlement to those whistleblower protections ("the Harmers proceedings").

3. During the Oil Search proceedings, several affidavits (as well as annexures and exhibits annexed to those affidavits) were served by the defendant, some of which were read, while a significant number of other documents were disclosed by the defendant or third parties pursuant to subpoenas, notices to produce or by way of voluntary production. Some of that material will inevitably attract the operation of the implied obligation, as stated in Hearne v Street (2008) 235 CLR 125; [2008] HCA 36 ("Hearne"), which provides that where one party to litigation is compelled to disclose documents or information, the party obtaining disclosure cannot, without the leave of the court, use the documents or information for any purpose other than that for which they are given, unless or until the documents or information are received into evidence.

4. By notice of motion filed 18 December 2024, the plaintiff seeks:-

1) Leave to use the documents obtained in the Oil Search proceedings, for the sole purpose of conducting the claim against Harmers;

2) Further and in the alternative, an order releasing the plaintiff from the implied obligation not to use those documents for any purpose other than that for which they were given in the Oil Search proceedings, to the extent required so that the plaintiff may use them for the claim against Harmers.

5. Whether expressed as leave to use the documents or as a limited release from the implied obligation, both prayers of relief seek the same functional outcome, being permission for the plaintiff to use the documents obtained in the Oil Search proceedings in her claim against Harmers.

6. The defendant's position was that the relief sought by the plaintiff should be refused because the application was too broad and lacked specificity.

7. The plaintiff relied on two affidavits (and their exhibits), sworn by her solicitors Michael Gillis and Nicola Sanchez on 18 December 2024 and 26 March 2025 respectively. Neither were cross-examined. The plaintiff also tendered an email chain between the parties and the Court dated 7 March 2025. The defendant relied on the affidavit of its solicitor Alice DeBoos sworn on 19 March 2025. She was not cross-examined. The defendant also tendered two letters exchanged by the parties on 3 and 4 March 2025.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/196d6091a4c54193ecfa62f0)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.