Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 07 MARCH 2018

Confidentiality in court – when is the implied undertaking sufficient?

A court may impose a more onerous obligation than the implied undertaking in exceptional circumstances. .

AustraliaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Tri-Star Petroleum Company & Ors v Australia Pacific LNG Pty Limited & Ors [2017] QSC 136

Litigation almost always involves the disclosure of more information than the parties would prefer. Corporate litigation in particular throws up issues of commercial sensitivity on a regular basis, particularly where the litigants are not only fighting in court but in the marketplace.

In a decision handed down in mid last year, the Supreme Court of Queensland outlined the test for determining when a court will impose a more onerous obligation than the implied undertaking in respect of confidential documents. The implied or 'Harman' undertaking is a substantive legal obligation not to use documents or information obtained in litigation for a purpose unrelated to the conduct of the proceeding in which it was obtained.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from