Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Chandrasekaran v Commonwealth of Australia [2019] FCA 1169 File number: NSD 974 of 2019
Judge: WIGNEY J
Date of judgment: 3 July 2019
Date of publication of reasons: 2 August 2019
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – interlocutory application – application for urgent ex parte interlocutory relief for injunctions – application for Anton Piller search order against third party to proceeding – application for leave to issue subpoena to third party – where application for ex parte relief has no merit – consideration of principles relating to search orders – where requirements for Anton Piller search order not met – where search order sought against third party to proceedings – where application for leave to issue subpoena to third party dismissed.
Legislation: Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 23 Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) Telecommunications Act 1996 (Cth) Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 7.42, Div 7.5 Health Practitioner Regulation National Law 2009 (NSW) Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW)
Cases cited: Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Limited (1976) Ch 55 Long v Specifier Publications Pty Limited (1998) 44 NSWLR 545 Metso Minerals Limited v Kalra (No. 3) [2008] FCA 1201 Microsoft Corporation v Goodview Electronics Pty Limited [1999] FCA 754; 46 IPR 159 Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v Apple (2011) 217 FCR 238 Television Broadcasts Limited v Nguyen (1988) 21 FCR 3
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