PhotoCure ASA v Queen's University at Kingston [2003] FCA 1508

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PhotoCure ASA v Queen's University at Kingston [2003] FCA 1508

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – discovery of confidential documents – whether an attorney representing a party who is also the corporate secretary of that party should be entitled to inspect the confidential documents

Macquarie Generation v Coal & Allied Industries Ltd [2001] FCA 1349 – applied Palmer Tube Mills Limited v Tubemakers of Australia Limited (unreported, Federal Court of Australia, Lockhart J, 10 December 1991) - cited Mobil Oil Australia Ltd v Guina Developments Pty Ltd [1996] 2 VR 34 – cited Arab Monetary Fund v Hashim [1989] 1 WLR 565 - cited Norbrook Laboratories Limited v G.C. Hanford Manufacturing Company doing business as Hanford Pharmaceuticals (unreported, US District Court for the Northern District of New York, 24 April 2003, LEXIS 6851) - cited Adam P. Brown Male Fashions Proprietary Limited v Philip Morris Incorporated (1981) 148 CLR 170 - cited PHOTOCURE ASA (ACN 967 598 593) v QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY AT KINGSTON AND DUSA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC DUSA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC v PHOTOCURE ASA (ACN 967 598 593) AND GALDERMA S.A. V 214 of 2002 MERKEL J 18 DECEMBER 2003 MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 214 OF 2002

BETWEEN: PHOTOCURE ASA (ACN 967 598 593)

APPLICANT

AND: QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY AT KINGSTON

AND BETWEEN: FIRST RESPONDENT

AND: DUSA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC

SECOND RESPONDENT

DUSA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC

CROSS CLAIMANT

PHOTOCURE ASA (ACN 967 598 593)

FIRST CROSS RESPONDENT

GALDERMA S.A.

SECOND CROSS RESPONDENT JUDGE: MERKEL J

DATE OF ORDER: 18 DECEMBER 2003

WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT the consent order made on 25 November 2003 be varied so that paragraph 1.2(ii) of Schedule 1 to that order reads as follows: "(ii) Reed Smith LLP, US attorneys for the Respondents/Cross-Claimant, other than attorneys who are officers of the Respondents/Cross-Claimant;"