You have 0 free articles left this month.
Big Law

Court protects lawyers, firms assisting hacked companies

Orders have been made to protect individual lawyers, firms, and expert witnesses who would otherwise be at risk of “retaliation and pressure campaigns” by the hackers who have gone after their clients.

February 24, 2026 By Naomi Neilson
Share this article on:
expand image

Justice Kate Williams of the NSW Supreme Court made orders in favour of three companies that were recently the victims of cyber attacks, including a non-publication order to protect the identities of those assisting them with their legal proceedings.

The threat actors have also been prohibited from disclosing or using the information from impacted datasets, and ordered to immediately remove any of the impacted datasets, including from the “dark web”.

 
 

Ansell Limited, a PPE manufacturer headquartered in Melbourne, received demands on 30 September 2025 and made the Australian Securities Exchange aware from mid-October.

Last November, shortly after interim restraining orders were made by the court, Ansell’s material was published on the dark web.

ReadyTech Holdings and subsidiary VETtrak, which provides support to registered training organisations, said a “small sample” of its exfiltrated data was published on the dark web on 23 October.

More of its data was published on 31 October after ReadyTech and VETtrak refused to pay the ransom demanded by the threat actors.

Justice Williams was satisfied the statement of claim was shared with the threat actors and, given they did not file a defence, admitted.

Having come to that conclusion, Justice Williams said it “provides ample support” for findings that the information was protected by the companies, the threat actor was on notice that the information was confidential, and its conduct justified the prohibition order.

“Although there has been some limited degree of dissemination of the information to date, I accept the plaintiffs’ submission that this has not caused the information to lose its quality of confidence such that it would no longer warrant protection,” Justice Williams said.

The injunction would have utility, “notwithstanding that there is a possibility that the threat actor may not object the injunction”.

The companies also sought and were granted a non-publication order over certain information about their systems and data arrangements, their means of detecting unauthorised access to data, their response to the incident, and concerns about the effects of public disclosure.

The court also protected its communications with the threat actor.

In her reasons, Justice Williams said that had she dismissed the non-publication request, it may have deterred “prospective future plaintiffs who are the victims of similar incidents from commencing proceedings of this kind in this court”.

Ansell, ReadyTech, and VETtrak also applied for a non-publication order over the names and identifying details of any person or firm included in the documents filed in the proceedings, including a law firm that specialises in cyber, privacy and digital risk.

On their evidence, the threat actors are “prone to engaging in retaliation and pressure campaigns against individual lawyers, firms and other individuals such as expert witnesses and expert consultants” named in material filed in court proceedings.

“[This] may include sending threatening messages to named individuals, publishing or distributing information about named individuals in a way that may expose them to fraud attempts, phishing and other forms of cyber attack, or attempting to track the movements and whereabouts of named individuals with a view to threatening their physical security,” Justice Williams said.

The order would mitigate “serious personal risks” that may otherwise deter experts from providing professional services.

“The ability of parties to proceedings to obtain legal representation should they wish to do so, and the assistance that legal practitioners provide to the court, is of central importance to the administration of justice in any proceeding,” the court said.

Citation 1: ReadyTech Holdings Limited v Persons Unknown [2026] NSWSC 66.

Citation 2: Ansell Limited v Persons Unknown [2026] NSWSC 65.

Want to see more stories from trusted news sources?
Make Lawyers Weekly a preferred news source on Google.
Click here to add Lawyers Weekly as a preferred news source.

Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly, as well as other titles under the Momentum Media umbrella. She regularly writes about matters before the Federal Court of Australia, the Supreme Courts, the Civil and Administrative Tribunals, and the Fair Work Commission. Naomi has also published investigative pieces about the legal profession, including sexual harassment and bullying, wage disputes, and staff exoduses. You can email Naomi at: naomi.neilson@momentummedia.com.au.