(Australia) The court reviewed the development of the common law rule that no confidence can exist in iniquity. The court rejected a submission that the Trade Practices Commission should be able to use a particular confidential report for the purpose of investigating possible breaches of the Trade Practices Act: ‘There is accordingly no evidence before the court of a breach of section 53(c). So far as section 55 is concerned, it may be necessary for the prosecution to prove mens rea. I do not decide this point; it is enough in my view at the interlocutory stage that such proof may be necessary. Even if I am wrong in this view, there is still the possibility of a defence on reasonable mistake, or reasonable reliance on information supplied by another person, under section 85(1). Until such a possibility is negatived, or at least shown to be unlikely, I think the court should reject the submission that on the evidence as it now stands there is a prima facie case of an offence under the Trade Practices Act. For similar reasons I do not think that there is such a likelihood of relief being granted in respect of a breach of section 52(1) as to justify the withdrawal of this courts protection of a confidence that has been established on undisputed evidence with reasonable clarity.
I do not mean to suggest that if the evidence had shown a breach by the plaintiff of the Trade Practices Act this of itself would excuse the Commission from its obligation of confidence. All I am saying is that the evidence does not show such a breach , with the result that, whatever the position might otherwise have been, the Commission is not excused from its obligation of confidence on this ground.’
Judges:
Roch J
Citations:
[1980] 51 FLR 184
Cited by:
Cited – In Re Smith Kline and French Laboratories Ltd HL 9-Feb-1989
The plaintiffs had applied for a product licence for a patented drug. To support its application, it supplied the authority with confidential information which the authority now sought to make use of the confidential information when considering . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property, Commonwealth
Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.183451