Woolworths Limited v Lawson [2002] NSWSC 985

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Woolworths Limited v Lawson [2002] NSWSC 985 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 2084/02 HEARING DATE(S) : 8 October 2002 JUDGMENT DATE : 8 October 2002

PARTIES : Woolworths Limited (Plaintiff) Theresa Lawson (Defendant) JUDGMENT OF : Campbell J

S Goodman (Plaintiff) COUNSEL : No Appearance (Defendant) C McDonald, solicitor (Star City) Clayton Utz (Plaintiff) SOLICITORS : No Appearance (Defendant) Cutler, Hughes & Harris (Star City) CATCHWORDS : PROCEDURE - miscellaneous procedural matters - application for variation of implied undertaking concerning use to which subpoenaed documents can be put - documents obtained from casino operator - effect of section 148 and 149 Casino Control Act 1992 on such an application LEGISLATION CITED : Casino Control Act 1992 CASES CITED : Ampolex v Perpetual Trustee Company (Canberra) Limited (1995) 18 ACSR 218 Capital Television Group Limited v Northern Rivers Television Pty Limited (Bainton J, unreported, 4 September 1995) DECISION : Access granted to insurer subject to confidentiality undertaking, and to police

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION EQUITY LIST

CAMPBELL J

TUESDAY 8 OCTOBER 2002

2084/02 WOOLWORTHS LIMITED v THERESA LAWSON JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: This is an application by Woolworths Limited in some litigation which it has brought against Ms Lawson. Ms Lawson is a former employee of Woolworths who Woolworths has dismissed and accused of misappropriating money. 2 The principal litigation concerns a claim which Woolworths brings against Ms Lawson to get back the money it says she has misappropriated. 3 In the course of those proceedings Woolworths has issued subpoenas to some nineteen different entities. Some are financial institutions, some are entities which operate places where gaming can be conducted. All of those entities have produced documents pursuant to subpoenas, which in some way bear upon the tracing of money said to have been taken by Ms Lawson from Woolworths. 4 One of the recipients of the subpoena is Star City Pty Limited, the operator of the Sydney Casino. 5 All of the recipients of the subpoenas except Star City have consented to the documents which they have produced being made available both to Woolworths' insurers, and also to the police. Woolworths wishes to make available the documents produced by Star City to its insurers to assist the insurers in the quantification of loss for the purpose of a claim which Woolworths has made. Woolworths also wishes to make the documents available to the police, in connection with charges against Ms Lawson. 6 Star City opposes the making available of the documents to its insurers, and the police. Star City points to requirements of s 148(3) and (4) of the Casino Control Act 1992, so far as the disclosure of the information to the insurers is concerned. Those provisions are part of a regime which aims to impose a high level of confidentiality on operations of the Casino. Section 148 provides: "(1) A person who acquires information in the exercise of functions under this Act must not, directly or indirectly, make a record of the information or divulge the information to another person, except in the exercise of functions under this Act. Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units. (2) Despite subsection (1), information may be divulged: (a) to a particular person or persons, if the Authority certifies that it is necessary in the public interest that the information be divulged to the person or persons, or (b) to a prescribed person or prescribed authority, or (c) to a person who is expressly or impliedly authorised to obtain it by the person to whom the information relates. (2A) Information to which section 143C applies may not be divulged under subsection (2) except with the consent of the Commissioner of Police. (3) A person cannot be required: