Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Apotex Pty Ltd v ICOS Corporation (No 2) [2017] FCA 589 File number: VID 280 of 2016
Judge: BESANKO J
Date of judgment: 26 May 2017
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – consideration of an application for an order for production in terms of a Notice to produce a document in a pleading or affidavit – whether documents are mentioned in an expert report – where no direct allusion to a document in the relevant sense – where reference by inference is not sufficient – where fact document almost certainly exists is not sufficient – where no procedural unfairness to the applicant as statement not made to bolster or support expert opinion.
Legislation: Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth) O 15 r 10 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 20.31
Cases cited: Apotex Pty Ltd v ICOS Corporation [2017] FCA 466 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Australialink Pty Ltd (2009) 177 FCR 35; [2009] FCA 265 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Visy Industries [2006] FCA 136; (2006) ATPR 42-102 Harman v Secretary of State for Home Department [1983] AC 280 Hearne and Another v Street and Others (2008) 235 CLR 125 King v GIO Australia Holdings Ltd [2001] FCA 1487 Oztech Pty Ltd v Public Trustee of Queensland (No 10) [2016] FCA 970 Welker v Rinehart [2012] NSWSC 588
Date of hearing: Heard on the papers
Date of last submissions: 18 May 2017
Registry: Victoria
Division: General Division
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