Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court, in determining the effect of the statutory requirement on a regulator of maintaining confidentiality of a regulated entity’s information, where that information has been seized by the regulator pursuant to its powers of search and seizure, finds that it is the responsibility of the regulator, who has seized the relevant information, rather than the regulated entity, to remove privileged or irrelevant information, as allowing the regulated entity to do so would be inconsistent with the context and purpose of the relevant legislation.
seized data - electronic search to remove privileged and irrelevant information before the investigation by the regulator continues - question of whether the confidentiality requirement under statute means that the regulated entity rather than the regulator should conduct the electronic search of the information which has been seized by the regulator - regulated entity claims that if regulator conducts the electronic key word search to remove the privileged/irrelevant information then they will have access to such information before investigation is carried out - search of information must be done by regulator as if done by regulated entity the very purpose of the statute is set at naught
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.