Zhu v The Treasurer of the State of New South Wales [2004] HCA 56

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GLEESON CJ,

GUMMOW, KIRBY, CALLINAN AND HEYDON JJ

PETER TAO ZHU APPELLANT

AND

THE TREASURER OF THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES RESPONDENT

Zhu v The Treasurer of the State of New South Wales [2004] HCA 56

17 November 2004

S616/2003

ORDER

1. Appeal allowed with costs. 2. Set aside the orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales made on 20 December 2002 and, in place thereof, order that the appeal to that Court be dismissed with costs.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales

Representation:

J C Kelly SC with S A Benson and M F Galvin for the appellant (instructed by Walker Hedges & Co)

B W Walker SC with M B J Lee for the respondent (instructed by Corrs Chambers Westgarth)

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Zhu v The Treasurer of the State of New South Wales

Tort − Interference with contractual relations − Contract between the plaintiff and TOC Management Services Pty Ltd ("TOC") authorised and obliged the plaintiff to sell memberships in an "Olympic Club" to residents of China − Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games ("SOCOG") interfered with the plaintiff's contract − Whether SOCOG had obligations to protect intellectual property under the Olympic Charter and the contract by which Sydney hosted the 2000 Olympic Games − Whether the plaintiff contravened the Sydney 2000 Games (Indicia and Images) Protection Act 1996 (Cth), s 12 − Whether SOCOG's interference with the plaintiff's contract was justified.

Tort − Interference with contractual relations − Defence of justification − TOC owed contractual obligations to SOCOG not to engage in certain conduct − Contract between TOC and the plaintiff obliged the plaintiff to engage in conduct contrary to the contract between TOC and SOCOG − Whether SOCOG held "proprietary" or "quasi-proprietary" rights − Whether SOCOG held an "actually existing superior legal right" − Whether SOCOG's conduct was "reasonably necessary" − Whether SOCOG was justified in interfering with the contract between TOC and the plaintiff.