Thank you for your response The Voice. I apologise for the typo.
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.
There is no connection between information that could be placed on a chart and information that could be classified as "commercially sensitive" (which is the type of information which is protected see
Mooregate Tobacco Co Ltd v Philip Morris Ltd (No. 2) (1984) 156 CLR 414 at 437ff). An injunction sought on this basis for the reasons you are advancing would fail.
The type of relief that protects against the threat of damage is the quia timet injunction (see
Carter v Murray [1981] 2 NSWLR 77). Perhaps this is more appropriate.
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.
I was clarifying that there is no separate "equity" and "common law" courts anymore.
In any case ... we could argue this back and forth.
Agreed.
Fact one, we have no facts to properly debate this.
Does anyone have the facts?
I seem to recall that some sports aviation group threatened legal proceedings (nothing specified) on the basis that a lot of effort went in to training members to comply with NAS requirements. They obviously felt aggrieved that by changing NAS, they p1ssed all that effort up the wall and are seeking redress.
Fact two, this aint quite the forum to debate this.
I don't recall starting this. In any event, having regard to the title of the thread...
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 ..
Depends on what jurisdiction. Your statement is definately true in criminal matters in the Local Court. I recall being able to advise clients on what they would get just by knowing who was hearing the matter.
Supreme Court commercial practise is based more on precedent and legal principle - you are stuck with the factual circumstances and the "bullsh1t baffles brains" technique does not work with very intelligent judges and opposition.
Happy Flying
