Fairfield City Council v Persons Unknown NSW Caselaw

pDefault judgment entered and orders made in terms of Annexure A ppEQUITY Equitable remedies injunctions where the plaintiffs seek leave to proceed pursuant to UCPR r 118AA where plaintiffs seek injunctions by way of default judgment against persons whose identities are unknown but who are defined in the statement of claim by reference to specified past conduct andor communications with sufficient clarity that the injunctions do not operate against the world at largeppCourt Suppression and Nonpublication Orders Act 2010 NSW ss 6 7 8ppUniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 NSW rr 118 118AA 1426 162 163 1610ppAgar v Hyde 2000 201 CLR 552 2000 HCA 41ppAnsell Limited v Persons Unknown 2026 NSWSC 65ppAustralian Medical Association WA Incorporated v Persons Unknown 2026 NSWSC 111ppBrady v Brady 2025 NSWSC 217ppCommonwealth of Australia v John Fairfax Sons Ltd 1980 147 CLR 39 1980 HCA 44ppDRJ v Commissioner of Victims Rights 2020 NSWCA 136 ppDel Casale v Artedomus Aust Pty Ltd 2007 73 IPR 326 2007 NSWCA 172ppHWL Ebsworth Lawyers v Persons Unknown 2024 113 NSWLR 418 2024 NSWSC 71ppMidCity Skin Laser Centre Pty Ltd v ZahediAnarak 2006 67 NSWLR 569 2006 NSWSC 844ppNationwide News Pty Ltd v Quami 2016 93 NSWLR 384 2016 NSWCCA 97 ppQantas Airways Ltd v Persons Unknown 2025 NSWSC 776ppQantas Airways Ltd v Persons Unknown No 2 2025 NSWSC 1328ppReadyTech Holdings Ltd v Persons Unknown 2026 NSWSC 66ppRinehart v Welker 2011 93 NSWLR 311 2011 NSWCA 403 ppStreetscape Projects Australia Pty Ltd v City of Sydney 2013 85 NSWLR 196 2013 NSWCA 2 ppUniversity of Notre Dame Australia v Persons Unknown 2025 NSWSC 550 ppWentworth Partners Estate Agents Pty Ltd tas Re Max Gold v Gordony 2007 NSWSC 1135ppX v Twitter Inc 2017 95 NSWLR 301 2017 NSWSC 1300ppX v Y Z 2017 NSWSC 1214ppThese reasons concern the plaintiffs notice of motion filed on 10 February 2026 seeking leave to proceed pursuant to r 118AA of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 NSW UCPR injunctive relief on a final basis by way of default judgment nonpublication orders pursuant to the Court Suppression and NonPublication Orders Act 2010 NSW and an order restricting access by news media organisations to parts of the court fileppFollowing a hearing on 6 March 2026 and after considering a supplementary written submission received from counsel for the plaintiff later that day I made orders on 9 March 2026 in the terms sought by the plaintiffs and reproduced in Annexure A hereto on the basis that my reasons for doing so would be published as soon as practicable These are those reasonsppThe following account of the factual matters relevant to the application are drawn from the plaintiffs evidence which has not been challenged as the defendants have not appearedppThe plaintiff is a body politic of the State pursuant to s 220 of the Local Government Act 1993 NSW with responsibility for managing the local government area of Fairfield in Western Sydney New South Wales ppThe plaintiff operates computerised servers located at several premises of the plaintiff and at a thirdparty data centre in New South Wales the Servers The Servers are used to host applications used by the plaintiff in its daytoday operations and to store data and information that includes pppersonal information relating to councillorspppersonal financial and property information relating to customers ratepayers and residents of the plaintiffpppersonal financial and employment information relating to the plaintiffs employeesppoperational materials including information relating to development and other compliance mattersppfinancial information relating to the plaintiff andpplegal advice and associated documentsppOn or about 8 October 2025 unnamed persons claiming to be part of a named group gained unauthorised access to the Servers and encrypted them with ransomware In the course of investigating this activity the plaintiff discovered a ransom note which claimed that the plaintiffs networksystem had been encrypted that the unnamed persons had downloaded compromising and sensitive data from the networksystem including some of the kinds of information referred to at 5 above and that the data would be published if the plaintiff refused to communicate or failed to come to an agreement with the unnamed persons The ransom note included instructions for the plaintiff to communicate with the unnamed persons only through a specified chat room In these reasons the unnamed persons are referred to collectively as the Threat ActorppThe Threat Actor posted a message in the chatroom repeating its claim to have encrypted the plaintiffs data and to have exfiltrated compromising and sensitive data from the plaintiffs systems and network and demanding payment of a specified sum in return for the Threat Actor providing decryption tools and a complete list of all files they had taken from the plaintiffs network promising that it would not attack the plaintiff again in the future and guaranteeing that we will forget about this incident ppThe plaintiff has not paid the ransom demanded by the Threat Actor Nor has it paid any other sum to the Threat Actor ppThe plaintiffs investigations have ascertained that the Threat Actor did exfiltrate large amounts of data from the Servers The full extent of the exfiltration is the subject of ongoing investigation For this reason and due to the large number of files that are presently known to have been encrypted and exfiltrated and the plaintiffs ongoing restoration efforts it is not possible to enumerate all of the specific files comprising the Exfiltrated Dataset However having regard to the nature and volume of the data stored on the Servers as referred to at 5 above and the nature of the data that the Threat Actor claimed to have exfiltrated in the ransom note referred to at 6 above and the file names of the files presently known to have been exfiltrated it is probable that the Exfiltrated Dataset includes a significant quantity of information of the kind referred to at 5 above ppI refer to all of the data stored on the Servers which the Threat Actor accessed without authorisation as the Impacted Dataset I refer to the data that was exfiltrated from the Servers by the Threat Actor as the Exfiltrated DatasetppThe plaintiff has notified various government agencies and regulators of the incident including Cyber Security New South Wales the Australian Cyber Security Centre the Information and Privacy Commission New South Wales and the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner ppThe plaintiff takes precautions to prevent unauthorised access to and use of its data and information on the Servers by employing physical barriers to the Servers and technical security barriers to the data stored on them The plaintiff has never published the Exfiltrated Dataset itself ppThe plaintiff wishes to take all reasonable steps within its power to protect its reputation and relationships with customers ratepayers residents councillors employees and other stakeholders whose personal and financial information is stored on the Servers and who may be exposed to the risk of identity theft or fraud as a result of the Threat Actors exfiltration of and threat to publish that information The plaintiff wishes to protect the interests of those affected persons and also to prevent harm to the plaintiffs operations that would result from any publication of the Exfiltrated Dataset ppThe identity of the Threat Actor is not known and its precise location cannot be ascertained The application for default judgment proceeded on the assumption that the Threat Actor is located outside Australia The evidence adduced by the plaintiff supports that inference ppThe plaintiff commenced these proceedings on an urgent basis on 6 November 2025 against the defendant Persons Unknown described as any person or entity which ppcarried out participated in or assisted in the exfiltration of some or all of the plaintiffs Impacted Dataset orppin respect of the Exfiltrated Dataset communicated payment demands or threats to the plaintiff directly or indirectly or posted some or all of the Exfiltrated Dataset online whether for sale or otherwiseppThe Court made interim orders on an ex parte basis on that date pprestraining the defendants by themselves their agents or by any third party in possession of some or all of the Exfiltrated Dataset until 500pm on 10 November 2025 from doing any of the following without the plaintiffs written consent ppplacing any information or material from the Impacted Dataset including the Exfiltrated Dataset at any location on the internet pptransmitting publishing or disclosing any information or material from the Impacted Dataset including the Exfiltrated Dataset to any personppusing including viewing any information or material from the Impacted Dataset including the Exfiltrated Dataset already in their possession for any purpose other than obtaining legal advice in connection with the orders andpppromoting or publishing any links to locations from which information or material from the Impacted Dataset including the Exfiltrated Dataset may be able to be downloaded andpprequiring the defendants to take all steps to immediately remove any of the Impacted Dataset including the Exfiltrated Dataset from all accessible internet locations including dark web locations ppOn 10 November 2025 those orders were extended until further order ppThe orders made on 6 November 2025 also included orders for substituted service on the defendants by sending a message to the chatroom specified by the Threat Actor containing a Dropbox link through which copies of the statement of claim and other documents can be downloaded 1 The plaintiff was granted leave to redact from the copies of the documents served all references to the names identifying details and contact details of the plaintiffs legal representatives information technology and cybersecurity experts and certain other material Interim nonpublication orders were made pursuant to s 7b of the Court Suppression and NonPublication Orders Act 2010 NSW Time for service was abridged to 200pm on 7 November 2025 ppAt the time of the hearing of the application for default judgment the Threat Actor has not published the Exfiltrated Dataset online insofar as the searches and investigations made by the plaintiffs expert had been able to ascertain However having regard to the ransom note there remains a material risk that the Threat Actor will publish or otherwise disseminate the Exfiltrated Dataset ppThe applicable legal principles are well established Much of what follows draws heavily on recent judgments in which I have summarised those principles by reference to earlier judgments of this Court 2 I have been greatly assisted by the detailed submissions made by counsel for the plaintiffs in relation to the application of those principles in the circumstances of this caseppThe plaintiff has adduced evidence that on 7 November 2025 the Threat Actor was served in accordance with the substituted service orders made on 6 November 2025 3 with a Form 161 notice the plaintiffs statement of claim and notice of motion filed on 6 November 2025 the affidavit relied on by the plaintiffs in support of the interim relief claimed in the notice of motion and the exhibit to that affidavit and the written submissions made by counsel for the plaintiffs at the hearing on 6 November 2025 together with the orders made by the Court on that date redacted as permitted by the Courts ordersppRule 118AA of the UCPR is engaged because the defendants or at least some of them are most likely located outside Australia and so have been served outside Australia No appearance has been entered on behalf of any person or persons identifying themselves as a defendant in these proceedings The time for doing so expired 42 days after service on 7 November 2025 being 19 December 2025 4 ppI respectfully agree with Brereton Js conclusion in University of Notre Dame Australia v Persons Unknown Notre Dame 5 that when considering an unopposed application under r 118AA leave should be granted ifppthere is proof of serviceppthe Court is satisfied that the originating process on its face reveals that the claim engages r 114 of the UCPR andppthere are no apparent countervailing considerations that would cause the Court to exercise its discretion to decline to grant leaveppI respectfully agree with and adopt his Honours reasons for that conclusion and his analysis of Agar v Hyde 6 ppIn the present case I am satisfied by the plaintiffs evidence referred to at 21 above that the Threat Actor has been served with the documents there referred to As the plaintiff submitted neither the application for leave under r 118AA nor the application for default judgment was required to be served 7 ppI accept the plaintiffs submission that the relief claimed in the statement of claim includes an injunction to restrain the dissemination of the Exfiltrated Dataset at any location on the internet which must necessarily encompass dissemination in Australia That engages r 114 of the UCPR which permits service of the statement of claim outside Australia without prior leave of the Court because the case is of the kind referred to in paragraph di of Schedule 6 to the UCPR 8 ppNeither the statement of claim nor the evidence that I have summarised at 419 above reveal any countervailing considerations that would cause the Court to decline to grant leave in this caseppNo defence has been filed on behalf of any person or persons identifying themselves as a defendant in these proceedings Irrespective of whether the defendants are permitted 28 days under r 1431 or 42 days under r 118 of the UCPR to file a defence the time for doing so has expired 9 The defendants are therefore in default for the purpose of Part 16 of the UCPR 10 The Court therefore has power to enter default judgment including by granting injunctive relief 11 Service having been established the likelihood that the defendants are outside Australia is no obstacle to this Court granting such relief 12 ppThe Court may give such judgment against the defendants in default as the plaintiff appears to be entitled to on its statement of claim 13 ppAs the plaintiff submitted an equitable duty of confidence arises when confidential information comes to the knowledge of a person in circumstances where they have notice that the information is confidential so that it would be just in all the circumstances that they should be precluded from disclosing the information to others In order to obtain an equitable remedy for a breach or apprehended breach of the duty a plaintiff will typically need to identify the information specifically and establish that it is of a confidential nature and that there has been actual or threatened unauthorised use of the information by the defendant to the detriment of the plaintiff The requirement to identify the information specifically does not require a plaintiff to individually itemise documents in a case where the defendant has gained unauthorised access to a very large volume of the plaintiffs confidential information Such a requirement would be oppressive The confidential quality of the information is generally demonstrated by the information not being public property and public knowledge by the plaintiff having expended effort in the creation or collection of the information and by the plaintiff having taken steps to protect the information and keep it largely to itself In cases such as the present where a defendant has gained unauthorised access to encrypted and taken the plaintiffs information to extort money from the plaintiff under threat that the information will otherwise be published it can readily be concluded that the defendants obtained the information with knowledge that it was confidential 14 ppThe plaintiffs pleaded case which is supported by the affidavit evidence is compelling in my opinionppThe weight of authority favours the view that in circumstances where the defendant has failed to file a defence to the statement of claim the factual allegations pleaded in the statement of claim are taken to have been admitted 15 ppThe plaintiffs statement of claim pleads facts the deemed admission of which provides ample support for findings that the plaintiffs information to which the Threat Actor gained unauthorised access was protected by the plaintiff and included significant volumes of information of the kind referred to at 5 above which is confidential including because the plaintiff has developed effort in creating or collecting it its secrecy is guarded by the plaintiff and it includes information of a private and personal nature concerning the plaintiffs customers ratepayers residents councillors and employees 16 that the Threat Actor was on notice that the information was confidential and that its conduct in surreptitiously exfiltrating the information before making extortionate threats to publish the information make it just that the Threat Actor should be restrained from transmitting publishing or disclosing the information to others and should be restrained from using the information The evidence summarised at 414 above provides further support for such findings This is a case in which it would be oppressive to require the plaintiff to individually itemise the confidential information which has been described in sufficient detail in my opinion in the statement of claim and in the affidavits read by the plaintiff As there has been no transmission publication or dissemination of the information to date I accept the plaintiffs submission that the information retains its quality of confidence and warrants protectionppInjunctions in terms similar to those sought by the plaintiff have been granted by way of default judgment in previous cases arising out of unauthorised access to and exfiltration of a plaintiffs data including confidential information by persons who cannot be identified 17 The plaintiff in this case a government entity is not seeking to restrain the publication of the Exfiltrated Dataset for the purpose of precluding public review of the data and scrutiny of government action 18 Rather the plaintiff is seeking to protect the interests of those who would be most directly affected persons affected by and to prevent harm to the plaintiffs operations that would result from any publication of the Exfiltrated Dataset 19 ppThe defendants have been defined in the statement of claim as persons unknown who have engaged in or participated in or assisted with specified conduct or who directly or indirectly made certain communications to the plaintiff The injunction sought will not operate against the world at large In my view the defendants are described with sufficient clarity to identify those included and excluded 20 ppAlthough the terms of the injunction sought mention third parties it is in the form discussed by Brereton J in Notre Dame which I consider is appropriate for the same reasons as his Honour gave in that case 21 ppI accept the plaintiffs submission that the injunctions sought have utility notwithstanding that there is a possibility that the Threat Actor may not obey the injunction As Slattery J said in HWL Ebsworth a reputation for wilful disobedience to the law does not confer immunity from injunctions Moreover as the plaintiff submitted it will be open to it to notify third parties of the injunction 22 Such third parties properly advised would be aware that they should not take any step that would frustrate the effectiveness of this Courts orders 23 ppUnder s 7 of the Court Suppression and NonPublication Orders Act the Act the Court has power to make nonpublication orders on one or more of the grounds set out in s 8 of the ActppThe plaintiff sought nonpublication orders under the Act in the terms set out in paragraph 3 of Annexure A hereto The information to which those nonpublication orders apply falls into three broad categoriesppcertain information about the plaintiffs information technology systems and data arrangements its security response to the incident and remediation measures and its concerns about the effects of public disclosure of the Exfiltrated Data paragraphs 3c2 and 6 of Annexure Appthe plaintiffs knowledge about the Threat Actor and its intentions its communications with the Threat Actor and the specific communication channels provided by the Threat Actor to the plaintiff for the purpose of communicating with the Threat Actor paragraphs 3c3 4 and 7 of Annexure A andppthe names and identifying details and contact details of any person or firm included in documents filed in these proceedings including witnesses experts lawyers and law firms paragraphs 3c1 and 5 of Annexure AppTaking into account that a primary objective of the administration of justice is to safeguard the public interest in open justice 24 I am satisfied that the evidence adduced by the plaintiff demonstrates that the nonpublication orders in the terms of paragraph 3 of Annexure A are necessary in the strong sense in which that word is used in this context 25 to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice 26 andor to protect the safety of any person 27 andor to serve the public interest in resisting the growing scourge of digital extortion crimes which significantly outweighs the public interest in open justice to the extent that open justice would otherwise inadvertently assist the Threat Actor or other potential threat actors 28 ppThe evidence adduced by the plaintiff establishes that there is a risk of the Threat Actor or other potential threat actors being inadvertently assisted by publication of the first and second categories of information referred to above including by disclosing contact details for the Threat Actor to third parties who have no entitlement to the Exfiltrated Data but who may wish to acquire or access that data for their own benefit or gain Indeed those risks are rather obvious as a matter of common sense having regard to the increasing incidence of digital extortion which is a matter of common knowledge and is illustrated by the judgments of this Court in previous proceedings arising out of such incidents 29 It would be contrary to the public interest for the Threat Actor other potential threat actors or third parties to be inadvertently assisted in this way by the publication of the first and second categories of information 30 ppIt would also be prejudicial to the administration of justice in these proceedings if the price of the plaintiff adducing the evidence required to support its application for substantive relief was to directly or indirectly aid the Threat Actor or other potential threat actors The very harm that the plaintiff seeks to prevent by commencing and prosecuting these proceedings would be likely to be exacerbated and it would be likely to be exposed to an increased risk of further incidents of unauthorised access to and exfiltration of its confidential information Looking to the broader concept of the administration of justice such a price would be inherently likely to deter prospective future plaintiffs who are the victims of similar incidents from commencing proceedings of this kind in this Court 31 ppNonpublication of the first and second categories of information in this case does not preclude the Court from giving reasons for judgment that are amenable to meaningful public scrutiny Moreover as counsel for the plaintiff submitted any person permitted to access the court file will be able to view the information that is the subject of order 3 The order only prohibits the publication of that information by disseminating or providing access to the information to the public or a section of the public by any means ppInsofar as they apply to the information in the first and second categories the operation of the nonpublication orders for a period of five years will impact on the open justice principle only to the extent that is in my opinion necessary to protect the public interest and to avoid prejudice to the administration of justice in this case and in the broader senseppIn relation to the third category of information referred to above the evidence adduced by the plaintiff establishes that its solicitors are a specialist legal and advisory firm that provides a range of services in relation to cyber privacy and digital risk in Australia and New Zealand In the relatively short period of time since the firm was established it has frequently acted on multiple cyber incidents involving the same threat actor or group of threat actors The firm receives instructions on a regular basis to make applications for injunctive relief of the kind sought in the present proceedingsppThe evidence adduced by the plaintiff also establishes that threat actors are prone to engaging in retaliation and pressure campaigns against individual lawyers firms and other individuals such as expert witnesses and expert consultants who are named in documents filed in court proceedings of this kind as acting for or providing expert advice or assistance to or giving evidence for the plaintiff whose confidential data has been exfiltrated and who has been subjected to ransom demands The evidence establishes that such campaigns may include sending threatening messages to named individuals publishing or distributing information about named individuals in a way that may expose them to fraud attempts phishing and other forms of cyberattack or attempting to track the movements and whereabouts of named individuals with a view to threatening their physical security ppAn order for the nonpublication of the names and identifying details of those individuals without going so far as to suppress their identity is a means of mitigating those risks to their personal safety and I am satisfied that such orders are necessary for that purpose in this case The impact of the order on the public interest in open justice is very slight as it will have no bearing on the substance of the Courts reasons for judgment and will not preclude the public from scrutinising the work of the Court in this case It prevents prejudice to the public interest and to the broader administration of justice by mitigating serious personal risks that might otherwise deter experts from providing professional services to plaintiffs who are the victims of cybercrimes and that might otherwise deter individual legal practitioners and firms from accepting instructions to appear from plaintiffs in matters of this kind The ability of parties to proceedings to obtain legal representation should they wish to do so and to engage legal practitioners of their choosing and the assistance that legal practitioners provide to the Court is of central importance to the administration of justice in any proceedingppI am satisfied that the threeyear duration of the nonpublication orders in relation to identifying details of solicitors and law firms and the sixmonth duration of the orders in relation to counsel is necessary to ameliorate the risks to their safety and to serve the public interest and prevent the prejudice to the administration of justice described above having regard to the frequency with which the law firm acting for the plaintiff acts in matters of this kind In seeking only a sixmonth duration for the order insofar as it applies to identifying details of counsel counsel accepted that they were in a slightly different position from the law firm Amongst other things the role of counsel does not extend to communicating directly with threat actors for the purpose of serving them with proceedingsppI am satisfied that the fiveyear duration of the nonpublication orders in relation to identifying details of other named persons is necessary to ameliorate the risks to their safety and to serve the public interest in plaintiffs being able to obtain such expert assistance as they may require in response to incidents of the kind that gave rise to the present proceedings without the personal safety of those experts being placed at riskppFor all of the foregoing reasons I made the orders set out in Annexure A to these reasons on 9 March 2026ppppAnnexure A 161 KB pdf pp
1
The chatroom address specified in those orders was varied by a further order made on 10 November 2025 nunc pro tunc to correct an error in the 6 November 2025 orders
pp
2
Ansell Ltd v Persons Unknown 2026 NSWSC 65 Ansell ReadyTech Holdings Ltd v Persons Unknown 2026 NSWSC 66 ReadyTech Australian Medical Association WA Incorporated v Persons Unknown 2026 NSWSC 111 AMAWA
pp
3
But by posting the message to the correctly spelled chatroom address that was subsequently specified in the orders made on 10 November 2025
pp
4
UCPR r 118
pp
5
2025 NSWSC 550 at 2532
pp
6
2000 201 CLR 552 2000 HCA 41 at 5355 Gaudron McHugh Gummow and Hayne JJ
pp
7
UCPR r 118AA2 and r 1631Ab
pp
8
X v Y Z 2017 NSWSC 1214 at 1112 Pembroke J X v Twitter Inc 2017 95 NSWLR 301 2017 NSWSC 1300 at 2021 Pembroke J Notre Dame at 33 Brereton J
pp
9
Notre Dame at 23 Brereton J
pp
10
UCPR r 1621a
pp
11
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers v Persons Unknown 2024 113 NSWLR 418 2024 NSWSC 71 HWL Ebsworth at 25 27 Slattery J
pp
12
Ibid at 25 Slattery J and the authorities there referred to
pp
13
UCPR r 163 and r 1610
pp
14
Streetscape Projects Australia Pty Ltd v City of Sydney 2013 85 NSWLR 196 2013 NSWCA 2 at 153162 Barrett JA Meagher and Ward JJA agreeing and the authorities there referred to HWL Ebsworth at 3132 Slattery J Notre Dame at 46 Brereton J
pp
15
UCPR r 1426 Brady v Brady 2025 NSWSC 217 at 69 Pike J and the authorities there referred to
pp
16
See Del Casale v Artedomus Aust Pty Ltd 2007 73 IPR 326 2007 NSWCA 172 at 40 Hodgson JA and the authorities there referred to See also Wentworth Partners Estate Agents Pty Ltd tas Re Max Gold v Gordony 2007 NSWSC 1135 at 37 Young CJ in Eq and MidCity Skin Laser Centre Pty Ltd v ZahediAnarak 2006 67 NSWLR 569 2006 NSWSC 844 at 155157 Campbell J as his Honour then was
pp
17
For example HWL Ebsworth Notre Dame Ansell ReadyTech and AMAWA
pp
18
See Commonwealth of Australia v John Fairfax Sons Ltd 1980 147 CLR 39 at 5152 Mason J as his Honour then was
pp
19
See 13 above
pp
20
HWL Ebsworth at 3336 Slattery J and the authorities there referred to
pp
21
Notre Dame at 53 Brereton J
pp
22
HWL Ebsworth at 37 Slattery J
pp
23
Ibid
pp
24
Section 6 of the Act Rinehart v Welker 2011 93 NSWLR 311 2011 NSWCA 403 Rinehart at 32 Bathurst CJ and McColl JA DRJ v Commissioner of Victims Rights 2020 NSWCA 136 DRJ at 2941 Leeming JA Bell P and Meagher JA agreeing
pp
25
Rinehart at 2731 Bathurst CJ and McColl JA Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Quami 2016 93 NSWLR 384 2016 NSWCCA 97 at 2226 Bathurst CJ Beazley P and Hoeben CJ at CL DRJ at 4041 Leeming JA Bell P and Meagher JA agreeing
pp
26
Section 81a of the Act
pp
27
Section 81c of the Act
pp
28
Section 81e of the Act
pp
29
HWL Ebsworth Notre Dame Qantas Airways Ltd v Persons Unknown 2025 NSWSC 776 Qantas Airways Ltd v Persons Unknown No 2 2025 NSWSC 1328 Qantas No 2 Ansell ReadyTech AMAWA
pp
30
Qantas No 2 at 46 Kunc J
pp
31
DRJ at 3538 Leeming JA Bell P and Meagher JA agreeing and the authorities there referred to
pp
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
pp
Decision last updated





























17 March 2026







p