«Nothing suggests that H&K knew Shailendra was engaged in those misappropriations, or that H&K had access to his personal records or
other sources of information sufficient to establish constructive knowledge of the concealed theft,» the opinion said.
(i) Whether the applicant has provided evidence
sufficient to raise a valid, bona fide or reasonable claim; (ii) Whether the applicant has established a relationship with the third party from whom the
information is sought such that it establishes that the third party is somehow involved in the acts complained
of; (iii) Whether the third party is the only practicable
source of the
information available; (iv) Whether the third party can be indemnified for costs to which the third party may be exposed because
of the disclosure, some [authorities] refer to the associated expenses
of complying with the orders, while
others speak
of damages; and (v) Whether the interests
of justice favour the obtaining
of disclosure.