Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 2)

The case of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 2) involved the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd, and Nielsen, a third party. The primary dispute centred around the appropriateness of confidentiality orders, specifically those that were not directed to the parties and those that did not clearly identify relevant material. The case also addressed whether third party costs orders should be made.

The court was required to decide if confidentiality orders, which anticipated a breach of confidence or unnecessary disclosure of confidential information, were appropriate. Additionally, the court had to determine the appropriateness of third party costs orders, given Nielsen's status as a stranger to the proceedings and its desire to protect confidential information used by the parties.

The court concluded that it was appropriate to make an order giving effect to the proposed Confidentiality Regime, thereby restricting the disclosure of Nielsen's confidential information. The court acknowledged Nielsen's position as a third party and the potential inconvenience and disruption caused by the proceedings. However, considering Nielsen's attempts to reach a confidentiality agreement with the parties and the reason for its application, the court decided that there should be no order as to costs of the application. This decision balanced the misconceived nature of parts of Nielsen's previous application with the unusual nature of third party costs orders.

In summary, the court made an order restricting the publication or disclosure of Nielsen's confidential information and decided that there should be no order as to costs of the application. The court's decision highlighted the importance of balancing the protection of confidential information with the procedural fairness and the rights of third parties in litigation.