Australia, Aug. 16 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on July 16:

1. By proceedings commenced today in the Duty List, the plaintiff, Qantas Airways Limited, moves the Court to commence proceedings including for urgent interlocutory relief against persons unknown (the defendants). In the age of hackers and challenges to cybersecurity, the Court has become well familiar with this type of matter. There is no doubt that since the decision of Slattery J in HWL Ebsworth Lawyers v Persons Unknown (2024) 113 NSWLR 418; [2024] NSWSC 71 proceedings can be brought in this form.

2. There has already been considerable media attention directed to the fact that Qantas has been the subject of a cybersecurity incident. The present proceedings include an application for interlocutory injunctions restraining the defendants from, putting it generally, publishing, transmitting, disclosing or using any of the material which has been taken from Qantas' servers without Qantas' consent, and requesting the defendants to remove immediately all such material from any accessible location on the internet.

3. These short reasons deal with two particular aspects of today's application: the issue of my potential recusal and the suppression of the existence of these proceedings for not more than about 19 hours.

Recusal

4. I disclosed to Qantas' counsel that I am a person affected by this cybersecurity breach. I have been a member of the Qantas Club and a Qantas Frequent Flyer for more years than I care to remember. I have received a generic email from Qantas informing me that my data is caught up in what occurred.

5. Having disclosed that to counsel, I indicated my view that I did not regard what I had disclosed as a sufficient basis to recuse myself from dealing with the present application or the further conduct of these proceedings having regard to the principles in Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337.

6. Counsel indicated that he had no application to make in the light of my disclosure. With commendable efficiency, his written submissions had anticipated this issue and for the reasons he sets out in those submissions, I do not regard this as a case where my somewhat limited connection with what has occurred would cause a fair-minded lay observer to think that I could not approach the matter before me in an impartial way.

7. I also accept the force of counsel's submission that the principle of necessity may come into play here. I would almost be prepared to take it as a matter of judicial notice that every judge of this Court is likely to have flown with Qantas and is probably a Frequent Flyer or member of the Qantas Club.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19816b6842cc57cfb8c1c4a4)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.