Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi Energia S.R.L. (No 8) [2014] FCA 376 Citation: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi Energia S.R.L. (No 8) [2014] FCA 376
Parties: AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION v PRYSMIAN CAVI E SISTEMI ENERGIA S.R.L. (FORMERLY PIRELLI CAVI E SISTEMI ENERGIA S.P.A.) and NEXANS SA RCS PARIS 393 525 852
File number: SAD 145 of 2009
Judge: BESANKO J
Date of judgment: 15 April 2014
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – discovery – application for further and better discovery – application for better description of discovered documents – application for Sabre order – where respondent company part of company group – where respondent company business and documents transferred to subsidiary company – where related companies occupy same business premises – where one director appointed to board of directors in both related companies – whether documents of related company in the control of respondent company – whether documents of related company in the possession, custody or power of the respondent company – whether respondent company had presently enforceable legal right to obtain documents – whether respondent company had actual and immediate ability to inspect documents. Held: Application dismissed.
Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) Sch 1
Cases cited: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi Energia S.R.L (No 4) (2012) 298 ALR 251; [2012] FCA 1323 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi Energia S.R.L. (No 7) [2014] FCA 5 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v BHP Billiton Limited (2011) 244 CLR 325 Industrial Equity Limited and Others v Blackburn and Others (1977) 137 CLR 567 Linfa Pty Ltd v Citibank Ltd [1995] 1 VR 643 Lonrho Ltd and Another v Shell Petroleum Co Ltd and Another [1980] 1 WLR 627 Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Nicholls & Others [2008] NSWSC 1230; (2008) 74 NSWLR 218 Nexans SA RCA Paris 393 525 852 v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2013] FCA 192 Sabre Corporation Pty Ltd v Russ Kalvin's Hair Care Company and Others (1993) 46 FCR 428 Taylor v Santos Ltd (1998) 71 SASR 434 Walker v Wimborne (1976) 137 CLR 1
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