Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Outback Stores Pty Ltd v Smith [2020] FCA 1785 File number: NTD 16 of 2020
Judgment of: WHITE J
Date of judgment: 11 December 2020
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for a preliminary discovery order under r 7.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – whether the prospective applicant had the requisite belief that it had a right to relief in misleading and deceptive conduct, defamation and breach of confidentiality in equity – whether other elements required by r 7.23 were established – application dismissed.
Legislation: Australian Consumer Law ss 18, 236 Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (Cth) s 16(3) Uniform Defamation Acts Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth) O 15A, r 6 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 7.21, 7.22, 7.23, 16.01 Defamation Act 2006 (NT) s 8
Cases cited: Apache Northwest Pty Ltd v Newcrest Mining Ltd [2009] FCAFC 39; (2009) 182 FCR 124 Crosby v Kelly [2012] FCAFC 96; (2012) 203 FCR 451 Dartberg Pty Ltd v Wealthcare Financial Planning Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1215; (2007) 164 FCR 450 EBOS Group Pty Ltd v Team Medical Supplies Pty Ltd (No 3) [2012] FCA 48; (2012) 199 FCR 533 Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Rush [2020] FCAFC 115; (2020) 380 ALR 432 Optiver Australia Pty Ltd v Tibra Trading Pty Ltd [2008] FCAFC 133; (2008) 169 FCR 435 Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd [1982] HCA 44; (1982) 149 CLR 191 Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals v Samsung Bioepis AU Pty Ltd [2017] FCAFC 193; (2017) 257 FCR 62 Quanta Software International Pty Ltd v Computer Management Services Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 969; (2000) 175 ALR 536 Rana v Google Inc [2017] FCAFC 156; (2017) 254 FCR 1 Reeve v Aqualast Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 679 Sexpo Pty Ltd v Collective Shout Ltd [2018] FCA 544 Smith Kline & French Laboratories (Aust) Ltd v Secretary, Department of Community Services and Health (1990) 22 FCR 73 Telstra Corporation Ltd v Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy [2008] FCAFC 7; (2008) 166 FCR 64 Wardley Australia Ltd v State of Western Australia [1992] HCA 55; (1992) 175 CLR 514
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