Catchwords:
EQUITY – EQUITABLE REMEDIES – INJUNCTIONS – MANDATORY INJUNCTIONS – OTHER MATTERS – where the terms of a settlement deed and a consent order made in one proceeding required the applicants to indemnify the fourth respondent in respect of any liability it might have to the first respondent for a claim advanced in another proceeding – where the fourth respondent consented to its senior counsel in the first proceeding acting for the first respondent in the other proceeding – where the applicants alleged that the senior counsel must thereby have disclosed the fourth respondent’s confidential information to the first respondent – where the applicants contended they thereby have a right to have the order imposing the indemnity obligation set aside – whether the applicants are subrogated to the rights of the fourth respondent in relation to the potential disclosure of its confidential information to the first respondent – where the applicants seek orders requiring the respondents to depose as to their knowledge concerning information passing between themselves and senior counsel relating to the matters the subject of the proceeding – whether an injunction should be granted
EQUITY – EQUITABLE REMEDIES – INJUNCTIONS – INJUNCTIONS FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSES – IN AID OF A LEGAL RIGHT – where the applicants allege that the fourth respondent breached the terms of a settlement deed in one proceeding by consenting to its senior counsel in that proceeding acting for the first respondent in another proceeding – where the applicants allege that the fourth respondent breached the terms of a settlement deed by disclosing its confidential information to the first respondent – where the applicants rely on the equitable jurisdiction to order preliminary discovery in aid of alleged legal rights – whether the applicants established a sufficient evidentiary basis to justify ordering preliminary discovery in aid of alleged legal rights
PROCEDURE – STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS: JURISDICTION, POWERS AND GENERALLY – INHERENT AND GENERAL STATUTORY POWERS – TO PREVENT ABUSE OF PROCESS – GENERALLY – where the applicants rely on the Court’s inherent jurisdiction to protect the integrity of its own processes – where the applicants allege unconscientious conduct by legal practitioners and liquidators which may frustrate the proper conduct of the applicants’ defence of a related proceeding – where the applicants were unable to establish that any information not already public or not already disclosed had been provided to the first respondent by officers of the Court – whether a prudent, sensible commercial person would infer any likelihood that the Court’s processes might be frustrated
https://jade.io/viewArticle.html?aid=766712&pid=-1&h=1502666671