Inlon Pty Ltd v Farmgard Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 718

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Inlon Pty Ltd v Farmgard Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 718 Hearing dates: 16 December 2018 Date of orders: 24 June 2018 Decision date: 24 June 2018 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Rothman J Decision: The plaintiff to file a minute of the orders consistent with these reasons for judgment, including the grant of leave to file the second version of the Amended Statement of Claim as well as the confidentiality and suppression of the incorrect Exhibit. That minute should include the order in relation to the costs of the Motion relating to the Amended Statement of Claim and, otherwise, the costs will be costs in the cause. Catchwords: PRACTICE and PROCEDURE – leave to amend Statement of Claim – Second Attempt – Confidentiality of documents served in error – costs Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Inlon Pty Ltd (Plaintiff/Applicant) Farmgard Pty Ltd (First Defendant/First Respondent) Farmgard Limited (Second Defendant/Second Respondent) Representation: Counsel: F Douglas QC (Plaintiff/Applicant) J Wright (Defendants/Respondents)

Solicitors: Aubrey Brown Partners (Plaintiff/Applicant) Colin Biggers & Paisley (Defendants/Respondents) File Number(s): 2017/268211

Judgment 1. HIS HONOUR: On 31 August 2018 the plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion seeking leave to file and serve an Amended Statement of Claim (hereinafter "ASOC 1") in the form provided to the defendants' solicitors on 16 August 2018. Further, application was sought under the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) that certain exhibits, being Confidential Exhibit JJ2 to the Affidavit of Joseph Anthony James Gardim and Confidential Exhibit ABS-3 to the Affidavit of Anthony Bryn Samuel, need not be disclosed to the first defendant, the second defendant or Celli S.p.A.; the in-house counsel or the employees or agents of the entities earlier described; the defendants' legal representatives or independent experts unless such persons have signed confidentiality undertakings; or any other person who is not provided a signed confidentiality undertaking to the solicitors for the plaintiff. A form of the confidentiality undertaking was provided to the Court. 2. The Notice of Motion filed on 31 August 2018 was consistent with leave granted by the Court, by consent, on 17 August 2018.