Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Alexander v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority (No 2) [2010] FCA 467 Citation: Alexander v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority (No 2) [2010] FCA 467 Parties: MICHAEL ALEXANDER, NARASIM ANAND RAJU and PHILIP HARDY v THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY PHARMACY AUTHORITY, PHILIP COLASANTE, ADRIAN SEBASTIANO and ADAM SEBASTIANO
File number(s): VID 881 of 2009
Judge: TRACEY J
Date of judgment: 14 May 2010
Catchwords: EVIDENCE – claim for privilege – documentary evidence of what passed between parties during settlement negotiations with respect to costs - proscription pursuant to s 131(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ("the Act") does not apply - public interest exceptions under s 131(2) of the Act may apply - Court may have regard to document for purpose of determining appropriate costs orders
Legislation: Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) s 5 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 55, 56, 131
Cases cited: Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd & ors (No 3) [2002] FCA 1294, approved Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Black on White [2002] FCA 1605, cited Alexander v The Australian Community Pharmacy Authority [2010] FCA 189, cited Field v Commissioner for Railways (1957) 99 CLR 285, cited Marks v GIO Australia Holdings Ltd (No 2) (1996) 66 FCR 128, approved Pinot Nominees Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2009) 81 FCR 392, approved Rodgers v Rodgers (1964) 114 CLR 608, applied
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate