FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Fortescue Ltd v Element Zero Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 590
File number: NSD 527 of 2024 Judgment of: LOGAN J Date of judgment: 30 May 2024 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where the applicants had successfully applied for, and executed, Anton Piller search orders – where hearing was first return date after the execution of the search orders – where proceedings had, necessarily, been heavily suppressed prior to the execution of the search orders – where the respondents sought to keep the proceedings suppressed until a further case management hearing due to potential commercial and reputational damage from publicity – where the parties had largely agreed directions orders to advance the proceedings – whether proceedings should remain suppressed – suppression orders limited to confidential affidavit annexures Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) Cases cited: Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Limited [1976] Ch 55
Brags Electrics Ltd v Gregory [2010] NSWSC 1205
Division: General Division Registry: New South Wales National Practice Area: Intellectual Property Sub-area: Copyright and Industrial Designs Number of paragraphs: 42 Date of hearing: 30 May 2024 Counsel for the Applicants: Mr J Cooke SC with Ms S Yates Solicitor for the Applicants: Davies Collison Cave Law Counsel for the First, Second and Fourth Respondents: Mr J Hennessy SC with Mr C McMeniman Solicitor for the First, Second and Fourth Respondents: Gilbert + Tobin Counsel for the Third Respondent: Ms F St John Solicitor for the Third Respondent: Minter Ellison Solicitor for the Other: Hall & Wilcox ORDERS
NSD 527 of 2024 BETWEEN: FORTESCUE LIMITED ACN 002 594 872 (HITHERTO KNOWN AS QFM1)
First Applicant
FORTESCUE FUTURE INDUSTRIES PTY LTD ACN 625 711 373 (HITHERTO KNOWN AS QFN2)
Second Applicant
FMG PERSONNEL SERVICES PTY LTD ACN 159 057 646 (HITHERTO KNOWN AS QFP3)
Third Applicant
AND: ELEMENT ZERO PTY LIMITED ACN 664 342 081 (HITHERTO KNOWN AS RAB1)
First Respondent
BARTLOMIEJ PIOTR KOLODZIEJCZYK (HITHERTO KNOWN AS RAC2)
Second Respondent
BJORN WINTHER-JENSEN (HITHERTO KNOWN AS RAD3) (and another named in the Schedule)
Third Respondent
HALL & WILCOX
Interested Person
ORDER MADE BY:
LOGAN J
DATE OF ORDER:
30 MAY 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.In this order the capitalised terms have the same meaning as in the search orders made on 14 May 2024 (the Search Orders).
Interim suppression and confidentiality
2.Order 4 made on 9 May 2024 (interim suppression order) continue to have effect until the case management hearing referred to in order 14 below or further order.
3.Three days before the case management hearing referred to in order 14 below, the Applicants file and serve an affidavit in support of a final confidentiality and suppression order in respect of the text in and attachments to the affidavits referred to in Annexure B of the Orders made 9 May 2024.
Search Orders
4.Order 19 of the Search Orders be varied such that the…
Continue reading Fortescue Ltd v Element Zero Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Fortescue Ltd v Element Zero Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 590
- Case
- [2024] FCA 590
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the suppression orders should remain in place and, if so, to what extent. The respondents argued that the suppression orders should remain in place until a further case management hearing due to potential commercial and reputational damage from publicity. The applicants, on the other hand, argued that the suppression orders should be lifted to allow for the normal progression of the case. The court needed to balance the need for suppression against the public interest in the administration of justice and the need to protect the parties' commercial interests.
The court decided that the suppression orders should remain in place but with modifications. The suppression orders were limited to the confidential affidavit annexures, allowing for the public progression of the case while protecting sensitive information. The court found that the need for suppression was outweighed by the public interest in the administration of justice and the need to protect the parties' commercial interests to a certain extent. The court varied the search orders to allow for the normal progression of the case while still protecting sensitive information.
The final orders included continuing the interim suppression order until the next case management hearing or further order. The applicants were required to file and serve an affidavit in support of a final confidentiality and suppression order regarding the text in and attachments to the affidavits. The search orders were varied to allow for the normal progression of the case while still protecting sensitive information. The respondents were required to file and serve their defences by a specified date, and the applicants were required to file and serve any interlocutory application for discovery by the respondents by another specified date. The matter was listed for a case management hearing on a specified date. The costs of the search orders and the hearing were reserved, and liberty to apply was granted.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. In this order the capitalised terms have the same meaning as in the search orders made on 14 May 2024 (the Search Orders).
Interim suppression and confidentiality
2. Order 4 made on 9 May 2024 (interim suppression order) continue to have effect until the case management hearing referred to in order 14 below or further order.
3. Three days before the case management hearing referred to in order 14 below, the Applicants file and serve an affidavit in support of a final confidentiality and suppression order in respect of the text in and attachments to the affidavits referred to in Annexure B of the Orders made 9 May 2024.
Search Orders
4. Order 19 of the Search Orders be varied such that the Applicant’s lawyer and the Independent Lawyer must not allow the Applicant in person to inspect or have copies of any thing removed from the Premises nor communicate to the Applicant information about its contents or about anything observed at the Premises until 4:30pm on the case management hearing referred to in order 14 below or other time fixed by further order of the Court.
5. Order 20(e)(iv) of the Search Orders be varied such that:
(a) The Independent Computer Expert retain a digital copy of the computers, computer disks, drives or memory, electronic information storage devices or systems, and online accounts, and all electronic and hard copies of Listed Things.
(b) The Independent Computer Expert is not to provide the digital copy referred to in order 5(a) to any of the parties except by order of the Court.
(c) The Independent Computer Expert deliver a copy or digital copy of the computers, computer disks, drives or memory, electronic information storage devices or systems, and online accounts, and all electronic and hard copies of Listed Things to the Independent Lawyer by no later than 4pm on 30 May 2024.
6. Order 20(f) of the Search Orders be varied such that the Independent Lawyer deliver to any registry of the Federal Court of Australia all things received from the Independent Computer Expert by no later than 4pm on 31 May 2024.
7. Order 22(a) of the Search Orders be varied such that on or before 31 May 2024,
(a) the Independent Lawyer provide to:
(i) the solicitors for the First, Second and Fourth Respondent a copy of the Listed Things removed from the following Premises:
1. Unit 2, 30 Oxleigh Drive, Malaga, Western Australia 6090;
2. Unit 1, 19 Oxleigh Drive, Malaga, Western Australia 6090; and
3. 5A Volga Street, Hadfield, Victoria 3046.
(ii) the solicitors for the Third Respondent a copy of the Listed Things removed from Unit 4, 213 Gildercliffe Street, Scarborough, Western Australia 6019.
(b) the Independent Lawyer file and serve an affidavit attesting to such provision.
8. Order 22(b) of the Search Orders be varied such that the time for compliance be extended to a date to be determined by the Court at the case management hearing referred to in order 14 below.
9. As to the time for compliance with Orders 23(a) and 23(b) of the Search Orders:
(a) In the event that the Respondents’ Interlocutory Application (as later defined in these orders) be filed and served on or before 18 June 2024, the time for compliance be extended to 4:30pm on the date of the case management hearing according to the time prevailing at the location of the judge constituting the Court for the purposes of the case management hearing.
(b) If no such application be filed and served as aforesaid, the time for compliance be extended to 4:30pm at the like place on 18 June 2024.
10. Order 26 of the Search Orders be varied such that the prohibitions therein continue to have effect until further order.
Pleadings
11. On or before 18 June 2024, the First, Second and Fourth Respondents, and the Third Respondent, file and serve their Defences.
First, Second and Fourth Respondents’ Interlocutory Application
12. The First, Second and Fourth Respondents’ file and serve the interlocutory application foreshadowed in the First Affidavit of Michael John Williams sworn on 29 May 2024 (Respondents’ Interlocutory Application) together with any affidavit evidence in support by 18 June 2024.
Applicants’ Interlocutory Application for Discovery
13. The Applicants file and serve any interlocutory application for discovery by the Respondents (Applicants’ Interlocutory Application) together with any affidavit evidence in support by 21 June 2024.
Next case management hearing
14. The matter be listed for a case management hearing not before 24 June 2024 at 9:30am on a date to be fixed by the Court after consultation with the parties. Any and all interlocutory applications for which this order provides be returned for mention and for the making of related directions at that case management hearing.
15. Costs of the Search Orders and the costs of the hearing on 30 May 2024 are reserved.
16. Liberty to apply.
17. The undertaking given to the Court by each Applicant’s lawyer in Schedule B, paragraph B.2(7) of the Search Orders be varied and extended such that Applicant’s lawyer will not disclose to the Applicant any information that the lawyer acquires during or as a result of execution of the search order until 4:30pm on the date of the case management hearing referred to in order 14 above or other time fixed by further order of the Court.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.