Gram Engineering Pty Limited v BlueScope Steel Pty Limited (No 2)
Case
•
[2016] FCA 452
•26 April 2016
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Gram Engineering Pty Limited v BlueScope Steel Pty Limited (No 2) [2016] FCA 452
[2016] FCA 452
26 April 2016
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Gram Engineering Pty Limited brought an interlocutory application against BlueScope Steel Pty Limited, seeking access to confidential information allegedly contained in affidavits served by BlueScope pursuant to court orders. The application was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant sought an order that the respondent provide access to the confidential information, as well as costs of the application.
The court was required to determine whether the information in question was indeed confidential and protected from disclosure under the relevant court rules and orders. The court also had to consider whether the applicant's right to access the information was outweighed by any prejudice to the respondent that might result from such disclosure.
The court held that the information in question was not confidential and, therefore, not protected from disclosure. The court further found that the applicant had a legitimate need for the information in order to properly prepare its case. Accordingly, the court granted the application and ordered the respondent to provide the applicant with access to the information. The court also ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs of the application. The matter was adjourned for further directions.
The court's final orders were that the matter be adjourned for further directions at 9.30am on 16 May 2016 and that the respondent pay the applicant's costs of the application as agreed or taxed. The entry of orders was dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
The court was required to determine whether the information in question was indeed confidential and protected from disclosure under the relevant court rules and orders. The court also had to consider whether the applicant's right to access the information was outweighed by any prejudice to the respondent that might result from such disclosure.
The court held that the information in question was not confidential and, therefore, not protected from disclosure. The court further found that the applicant had a legitimate need for the information in order to properly prepare its case. Accordingly, the court granted the application and ordered the respondent to provide the applicant with access to the information. The court also ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs of the application. The matter was adjourned for further directions.
The court's final orders were that the matter be adjourned for further directions at 9.30am on 16 May 2016 and that the respondent pay the applicant's costs of the application as agreed or taxed. The entry of orders was dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Interlocutory Orders
-
Discovery & Disclosure
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Domino's Pizza Enterprises Limited v Precision Tracking Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 853
Cases Citing This Decision
4
Merial, Inc. v Intervet International B.V
[2016] FCA 1047
Merial, Inc. v Intervet International B.V
[2016] FCA 1047
Cases Cited
6
Statutory Material Cited
1
Gram Engineering Pty Ltd v Bluescope Steel Ltd
[2013] FCA 508
BlueScope Steel Limited v Gram Engineering Pty Ltd
[2014] FCAFC 107
Gram Engineering Pty Ltd v Bluescope Steel Ltd
[2013] FCA 508