Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia Impiombato v BHP Group Limited (No 3) [2023] FCA 1104 File number: VID 649 of 2018
Judgment of: MOSHINSKY J
Date of judgment: 14 September 2023
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – discovery – representative proceeding – shareholder class action – whether to order non-standard discovery (as sought by the applicants) – whether categories of discovery proposed by the applicants appropriate – where class action relating to the same events on foot in the UK – where overlap of issues between the UK proceeding and the present proceeding – where orders for disclosure made in the UK proceeding
Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) Legislation: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 674 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 37M Federal Court Rules 2011, rr 20.14, 20.15
Davis v Quintis Ltd (Subject to Deed of Company Arrangement) [2022] FCA 553 Municipio de Mariana v BHP Group (UK) Ltd (formerly BHP Group plc) and BHP Group Ltd [2023] EWHC 1134 (TCC) Cases cited: Reilly v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (No 3) [2020] FCA 1609 Sabre Corporation Pty Ltd v Russ Kalvin's Hair Care Co (1993) 46 FCR 428 SPI Spirits (Cyprus) Ltd v Diageo Australia Ltd (No 2) [2006] FCA 931; 155 FCR 150
Division:
Registry:
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Corporations and Corporate Insolvency
Number of paragraphs: 33
Date of hearing: 13 September 2023
Counsel for the Applicants: Mr AD Pound SC with Ms E Levine and Mr EL Olivier
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