Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Luxottica Retail Australia Pty Ltd v Specsavers Pty Ltd (No 3) [2011] FCA 793 Citation: Luxottica Retail Australia Pty Ltd v Specsavers Pty Ltd (No 3) [2011] FCA 793
Parties: LUXOTTICA RETAIL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD v SPECSAVERS PTY LTD
File number: NSD 353 of 2010
Judge: PERRAM J
Date of judgment: 18 July 2011
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Confidentiality – application for confidentiality rÉgime over financial, market share and brand reputation material – parties trade rivals – whether documents require additional protection as confidential in the sense of Mobil Oil Australia Ltd v Guina Developments Pty Ltd [1996] 2 VR 34 – whether access to documents by Company Secretary of trade rival should be permitted
Cases cited: Hearne v Street (2008) 235 CLR 125 cited Luxottica Retail Australia Pty Ltd v Specsavers Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 423 cited Luxottica Retail Australia v Specsavers Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] FCA 644 cited Mobil Oil Australia Ltd v Guina Developments Pty Ltd [1996] 2 VR 34 cited
Date of hearing: 16 February 2011, 8 April 2011
Date of last submissions: 27 May 2011
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 58
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr M Hall
Solicitor for the Applicant: Mallesons Stephen Jaques
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr H P T Bevan
Solicitor for the Respondent: Minter Ellison
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 353 of 2010
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