My Dear NAMPS,
Firstly, my nic is singular .. no S on the end if you please ..
Yes there are the Anton Pillar, Mareeva and quia timet injunctions but not every person is into the technicalities of the law.
I don't think anyone is particularly slipping in thru' a back door somewhere, nor about to make off with any assets prior to a decision being made on another matter. I'm not too sure that the publication of the ammended charts could be seen as unlawful interference in the exercising of the Pl. rights prior to any actual interference of them, so I don't think the quia timet injunction is up for discussion either.
With reference to the breach of confidence, is it not prudent to consider that with the re-publishing of the charts with the information back where it should be, an argument could be proffered that public interest extends to the protection of the community from either a dangerous product and or a dangerous practice? Therefore, a door is opened for some bright young thing to bring an action against the publisher of the charts without that information.
Yes, an injunction prevents something from happening, but that is exactly what I said. It can't be granted for anything to broad, hence the scope of it is only fitting to the scope of the 'breach'.
Broadly speaking .. the judges of the Supreme court administer both common law and equity matters concurrently. I gather you must be referring to the fusion debate which isn't settled, even after all this time .. and interesting to note that NSW had its judicature legislation advanced back to 1873 according to one CJ of NSW.
In any case ... we could argue this back and forth.
Fact one, we have no facts to properly debate this.
Fact two, this aint quite the forum to debate this.
Fact three, the law isn't cut and dried and depends on who presents the best agrument on the day as to how it affects the outcomes of the future ..