Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
JKC Australia LNG Pty Ltd v AkzoNobel NV (No 2) [2020] FCA 1789 File number: WAD 448 of 2017
Judgment of: BANKS-SMITH J
Date of judgment: 11 December 2020
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - subpoenas for production of documents - substantial amendments agreed by parties - power to amend - whether subpoenas should be amended or set aside - whether scope of remaining disputed categories oppressive
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37M Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 24.15, 24.22
Cases cited: Adelaide Steamship Company v Spalvins (1997) 24 ACSR 536 FAI Home Security Pty Ltd v Jay-N-Tee Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1408 Findlay v Grimmer [2013] WASC 234 JKC Australia LNG Pty Ltd v AkzoNobel NV [2019] FCA 1032 Perdaman Chemicals & Fertilisers Pty Ltd v Griffin Coal Mining Company Pty Ltd [No 6] [2012] WASC 450 Re Excel Finance Corp Ltd; Worthley v Australian Securities Commission (1993) 41 FCR 346 Sabre Corp Pty Ltd v Russ Kalvin's Hair Care Co (1993) 46 FCR 428 Santos Ltd v Pipelines Authority of SA (1966) 66 SASR 38 Wong v Sklavos [2014] FCAFC 120
Division: General Division
Registry: Western Australia
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Regulator and Consumer Protection
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