© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2016] FCA 1603
Federal Court of Australia
2016-11-15
Dowsett J
Original judgment source is linked above.
DOWSETT J: 1 The statutory framework in which this application is made is quite complex but, in fact, the case is very simple. Pursuant to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), a court may order a person to compensate a corporation or a registered scheme for damages suffered if that person has contravened a civil penalty provision. Pursuant to s 183 a person who obtains information because they are, or have been a director or other officer or employee of a corporation may not improperly use that information. 2 I am satisfied that the applicant reasonably suspects that some of its former employees have breached the provisions of s 183 and proposes to seek compensation in relation to such breaches. That the relevant information is confidential appears to flow from the contracts of employment which were in place between the applicant and those former employees. 3 The conduct, which is said to be in contravention of s 183, involves the accessing of a computer upon which certain client records are stored. The applicant has identified computers which may have been used to obtain that information and associated IP addresses. 4 It now seeks to obtain the name and address of each person holding each IP address. It seeks to do so pursuant to r 7.22 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. I am satisfied that the requirements of that rule have been met in this case. The only other matter which remains outstanding is consideration of issues of privacy which consideration may lead to a denial of such access. 5 Section 280 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth) makes it clear that the prohibition contained in s 276 does not apply in circumstances in which, as here, the disclosure or use is required or authorized by or under law. The Court has the authority to compel the provision of documents. In my view that means that the production for the purposes of court process is an exception to the prohibition contained in s 276. Similar observations apply concerning the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). The general prohibition is alleviated by the provisions of s 6.2(b) which again relate to use or disclosure by or under an Australian law or a court/tribunal order. 6 In those circumstances, I shall make an order in the terms of the draft which has been provided. I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett.
All Trades Queensland Pty Ltd
Telstra Corporation Limited