Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Westpac Banking Corporation [2021] FCA 722 File number: NSD 386 of 2021
Judgment of: LEE J
Date of judgment: 16 June 2021
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – applications by non-parties seeking confidentiality orders over documents to be produced in accordance with discovery obligations – documents appear to disclose commercially and price sensitive information – whether order is necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice – necessity requires that there is no other practicable avenue which exists to protect the legitimate interests of the person seeking the order – implied undertaking and requirement on the part of non-practitioners to sign an express obligation of confidence sufficient in the circumstances – consideration of the Hearne v Street obligation
Legislation: Constitution Ch III Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) Pt VAA
Cases cited: Steelforce Trading Pty Ltd v Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science (No 2) [2018] FCAFC 47 Motorola Solutions, Inc. v Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd (No 2) [2018] FCA 17 Hogan v Australian Crime Commission [2010] HCA 21; (2010) 240 CLR 651 Haswell v Commonwealth of Australia [2020] FCA 915 Harman v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1983] 1 AC 280 Hearne v Street [2008] HCA 36; (2008) 235 CLR 125 Treasury Wine Estates Ltd v Maurice Blackburn Pty Ltd [2020] FCAFC 226; (2020) 385 ALR 562
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