The background to these proceedings as set out in the judgment of Henry J in The Checkout Pty Ltd v Cordell Jigsaw Productions Pty Ltd. [1]
The dispute is between Mr Julian Morrow and Mr Nicholas Murray, and their associated companies (Giant Dwarf Pty Ltd in the case of Mr Morrow, and Cordell Jigsaw Productions Pty Ltd in the case of Mr Murray) and concerns the circumstances in which Mr Murray and his associated company ceased to be involved in the production of the television series "The Checkout" for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
The proceedings are set down for hearing in this list for five days commencing on 1 February 2021.
On 9 September 2020 I heard the plaintiffs' motion to amend their List Statement to incorporate a claim by Mr Morrow for defamation against Mr Murray and Cordell Jigsaw.
During argument that day, counsel for the plaintiffs accepted that Mr Morrow's proposed defamation proceedings and an allied application for leave to proceed out of time should be pursued separately in the Defamation List in the Common Law Division.
Mr Morrow has now circulated a proposed Statement of Claim to be filed in the Defamation List. He names Cordell Jigsaw and Mr Murray as defendants.
Now, by notice of motion filed in these proceedings on 11 September 2020, the plaintiffs, including Mr Morrow, seek to be released from the Harman undertaking [2] impliedly given by them to the Court in relation to a document produced to the Court by the ABC in response to a subpoena issued by the plaintiffs on 26 February 2020.
The document comprises an email chain dated 11 and 12 June 2019 between officers of the ABC.
In Mr Morrow's proposed Statement of Claim in the Defamation List Mr Morrow wishes to rely upon what is recorded in an email in that chain to allege that Mr Murray, and thus also Cordell Jigsaw, made comments to an identified ABC officer that were defamatory of him.
Mr Morrow contends that the email chain is the only record available to him as to what was said by Mr Murray to the ABC officer and comprises the only basis available to him to advance this aspect of his claim for defamation.
As the document was produced by the ABC in response to the Court's compulsory processes, I made directions to give the ABC an opportunity to be heard.
I have now received submissions from the ABC and from the plaintiffs on the question of whether the plaintiffs should be given the leave that is sought.
It is common ground that the Court will not release or modify the implied Harman undertaking except in "special circumstances". [3]
It is not necessary that an extraordinary factor bear on the question before the discretion will be exercised but:
"…good reason must be shown why, contrary to the usual position, documents produced or information obtained in one piece of litigation should be used for the advantage of a party in another piece of litigation…" [4]
On behalf of the ABC it was submitted that:
"i) The production and use of emails would seem to suggest a possible forced involvement of ABC staff by way of a summons to give evidence or otherwise;
ii) The employees of any organisation should for the most part be able to communicate confidentially, without fear of written communications forming part of litigation that does not involve those individuals directly. A release from the implied undertaking in this situation may dissuade people from such a practice; and
iii) Similarly, third parties (in this instance, the Defendants) should also be able to communicate with individuals at the ABC on a confidential basis and expect that it is unlikely that any legal process would require that confidentiality to be lifted."
The ABC also submitted that:
"As a matter of policy, it is particularly undesirable that the implied undertaking be lifted for the purpose of advancing an action in defamation. Should otherwise private documents produced under compulsion of the Court become readily available as a basis for defamation proceedings, there is a real risk that the candid disclosure of such documents may be discouraged."
The ABC drew attention to the observations of Ryan J in Mann v Medical Defence Union Limited [5] that:
"To allow [the document's] use to frame a cause of action in defamation would expose the [relevant party] to a hazard or potential liability quite unrelated to that in contemplation when it was discovered."
I accept that caution must be exercised in too readily permitting documents compulsorily produced in proceedings to be used for collateral defamation proceedings.
As the ABC submits, the prospect of this occurring might tend to discourage full and frank disclosure by officers within any organisation, including an organisation such as the ABC, of matters of vital interest to it. That is especially so where, as here, the dispute now being litigated between Mr Morrow and Mr Murray and their respective companies concerns a matter directly relevant to the ABC; namely, the production of what was one of its flagship television programmes.
I do not think it relevant that the plaintiffs' preferred position was to incorporate Mr Morrow's defamation claim into these proceedings. Had that occurred, an issue would still arise as to the use that could be made of the document produced by the ABC.
Nor do I think that the ABC's role as a public broadcaster or as a "publicly funded statutory authority" is relevant to my task here.
However, there are three factors which persuade me, in the special circumstance of this case, that the plaintiffs should have the leave they seek.
First, it seems unlikely that refusing the plaintiffs the leave will make it less likely that there will be a "possible forced involvement of ABC staff" in the defamation proceedings. That is because an email sent by Mr Murray to the ABC officer in question the day after the email the subject of the plaintiffs' application is also relied upon by Mr Morrow as giving rise to the same defamatory imputations as are said to arise from the subject email.
Second, it appears likely that the plaintiffs' Harman obligation expired when the contents of the email in question were read as part of the evidence before me on 9 September 2020. [6]
Third, the basis advanced by the plaintiffs in these proceedings to obtain leave to issue the subpoena in question included the following statement:
"If the document sought by the plaintiffs disclose that the defendant published defamatory or false statements to the ABC about the plaintiffs, or their goods and business, causing actual damage, the plaintiffs may be able to make a claim for relief from:
(a) the defendant for injurious falsehood; and/or
(b) the defendant for defamation." [7]
Thus the emails in question were produced by the ABC in response to a subpoena which was issued for the purpose for which the plaintiffs now seek to be released from the Harman undertaking.
In those circumstances, I am persuaded to make the orders the plaintiffs seek.
I order that:
1. the plaintiffs be released from the implied undertaking that the document attached as Annexure 1, Schedule B to the plaintiffs' notice of motion of 11 September 2020 may only be used for the purpose of these proceedings;
2. that the plaintiffs be permitted to use that document for the purpose of defamation proceedings as contemplated by the proposed Statement of Claim attached as Annexure 1 to the plaintiffs' notice of motion of 11 September 2020.
My preliminary view is that notwithstanding my conclusion that the plaintiffs be released from the undertaking, they should pay the ABC's costs of this application. If the plaintiffs wish to contend for a different order, they should send my Associate short submissions by 5pm on 8 October 2020. The ABC may reply by 5pm on 12 October 2020.
[3]
Endnotes
[2020] NSWSC 1238 at [3]-[23].
Home Office v Harman [1983] 1 AC 280 at 302 (Lord Diplock).
For example Crest Homes PLC v Marks [1987] 1 AC 829 at 860 (Lord Oliver); Springfield Nominees Pty Ltd v Bridgelands Securities Ltd (1992) 38 FCR 217; [1992] FCA 720 at 225 (Wilcox J); and Forty Two International Pty v Barnes [2010] FCA 397 at [74] (Yates J).
Liberty Funding Pty Ltd v Phoenix Capital Limited [2005] FCAFC 3 at [31] (Branson, Sundberg and Allsop JJ).
[1997] FCA 45 at 14-15.
See Hearne v Street (2008) 235 CLR 125; [2008] HCA 36 at [96] (Gleeson CJ, Kirby, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan JJ)
Affidavit of Mr Benjamin Kay 5 December 2019 at [19].
[4]
Amendments
16 June 2021 - Case title and case citations corrected
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
Decision last updated: 16 June 2021