The Gazal v Setiawan and Topaloglu case underscores the importance of protecting confidentiality in mediation. It involved a family dispute over valuable watches, where the improper disclosure of their values led to legal repercussions. This case serves as a reminder to restrict the use of litigation-obtained information to its intended purpose.

Case Background

The case involved a family dispute involving several valuable watches. The value of the watches had not been disclosed in the litigation until the service of the plaintiff’s mediation position paper. The respondent then disclosed those values to a person who worked for the Department of Taxation. The Department of Taxation then commenced proceedings against the plaintiff.

Judicial Findings

Justice Button expressed the concept as “All criminal contempts ‘share a common characteristic: they involve an interference with the administration of justice either in a particular case or more generally as a continuing process’”, including “a lack of confidence on the part of litigants in alternative dispute resolution mechanisms”.  While the respondent was found guilty, the question of punishment had been reserved.

Conclusion

It is important to remember that information obtained during litigation should be restricted to its proper use and not be disseminated improperly.  Another example is the Harmon implied undertaking expressed by the High Court in Hearne v Street (2008) 235 CLR 125, that “Where one party to litigation is compelled, either by reason of a rule of court, or by reason of a specific order of the court, or otherwise, to disclose documents or information, the party obtaining the disclosure cannot, without the leave of the court, use it for any purpose other than that for which it was given unless it is received into evidence.”

If you have any questions about the article, please contact John Van de Poll or Peter Bennett from our Insurance team.