Jones v Treasury Wine Estates Ltd

Case [2016] FCAFC 59

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Jones v Treasury Wine Estates Limited [2016] FCAFC 59

File number: NSD 660 of 2014
Judges: GILMOUR, FOSTER AND BEACH JJ
Date of judgment: 13 April 2016
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – anti-suit injunction – jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia to grant anti-suit injunctions where group members in representative action seek to invoke power of a foreign court to obtain compulsory oral discovery – case management principles – supervisory role of Federal Court of Australia under Pt IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) in relation to class actions – oral discovery – use of pre-trial oral depositions pursuant to orders made by United States District Court where such order made may assist in overseas proceedings – whether, in a current class action proceeding in this Court, the plaintiff and a US-resident group member should be permitted to make and pursue applications to a US Federal Court for orders requiring persons who will or are likely to be called as witnesses in the proceeding in this Court to attend to be deposed in the US Court without notice to the other party and without notice to the Court
Legislation:

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 596A, s 596B

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 44

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 20(1A), 23, 33ZF, 37M, 37N, 37P, 46, Pt IVA

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 20.11, 20.13, 24.10, 29.11, 29.12

Foreign Evidence Act 1994 (Cth), s 7

28 USC § 1782 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (US)

Cases cited:

Alanco Australia Pty Ltd v Higgins (No 2) [2011] FCA 1063

Allstate Life Insurance Co v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (No 4) (1996) 64 FCR 61

Armstrong v Armstrong [1892] P 98

BrisConnections Finance Pty Ltd v Arup Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 1077

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v BHP Coal Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] FCA 1396

CSR Ltd v Cigna Insurance Australia Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 345

Intel Corporation v Advanced Micro Devices Inc 542 US 241 (2004)

Martin v Tasmania Development Resources [1999] FCA 71

National Mutual Holdings Pty Ltd v The Sentry Corporation (1989) 22 FCR 209

Pathway Investments Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd (No 2) [2012] VSC 495

Sentry Corporation v Peat Marwick Mitchell & Co (1990) 24 FCR 463

South Carolina Insurance Co v Assurantie Maatschappij “De Zeven Provincien” NV [1987] AC 24

Australian Law Reform Commission’s Report, Managing Discovery: Discovery of Documents in Federal Courts, (Report No 115, March 2011)
Date of hearing: 19 November 2015
Registry: New South Wales
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Corporations and Corporate Insolvency
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 56
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr MBJ Lee SC with Mr G Donnellan and Mr IJM Ahmed
Solicitor for the Applicant: Maurice Blackburn Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent: Dr AS Bell SC with Mr P Herzfeld
Solicitor for the Respondent: Herbert Smith Freehills

ORDERS

NSD 660 of 2014
BETWEEN:

Continue reading Jones v Treasury Wine Estates Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Jones v Treasury Wine Estates Ltd [2016] FCAFC 59
Case
[2016] FCAFC 59
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Jones v Treasury Wine Estates Ltd was before the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute concerned an application by the respondent, Treasury Wine Estates Ltd, for an anti-suit injunction to prevent the applicant, Jones, and a US-resident group member, Utah Retirement Systems (URS), from taking further steps in proceedings before a United States District Court to obtain compulsory oral discovery. The court was required to determine whether such an injunction should be granted to prevent the applicant and URS from seeking orders in the United States District Court that would permit the taking of oral depositions from certain witnesses without notice to the parties or the Australian court.

The court considered the jurisdictional reach of the Federal Court of Australia and its supervisory role in relation to class actions under Pt IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). It also examined the use of pre-trial oral depositions pursuant to orders made by a United States District Court, specifically under 28 USC § 1782 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court evaluated the potential impact of such discovery on the proceedings before the Australian court and the principles of case management. Ultimately, the court found that the application for an anti-suit injunction was appropriate to prevent the applicant and URS from pursuing oral discovery in the United States without notice to the parties or the Australian court.

The Federal Court of Australia granted the relief sought by Treasury Wine Estates Ltd, issuing an anti-suit injunction against the applicant and URS. The injunction restrained the applicant from taking further steps in proceedings before the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and from obtaining any oral depositions from Stephen Brauer. It also restrained URS from taking or causing to be taken any oral depositions from Alejandro Escalante and Sandra LeDrew pursuant to orders made by the United States District Court, Northern District of California. The court ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the respondent's interlocutory application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant be restrained from taking any further step in furtherance of or in connection with the legal proceedings instigated by the applicant by his application to the United States District Court, Southern District of New York in Case No. 15 MISC 336, seeking orders that Stephen Brauer show cause why an order should not be issued permitting discovery pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, save for the withdrawal or discontinuance of those proceedings.

2. The applicant be restrained from taking or causing to be taken or participating in the taking of any oral deposition from Stephen Brauer pursuant to any order made by the United States District Court, Southern District of New York in Case No. 15 MISC 336 permitting discovery pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

3. Utah Retirement Systems (URS) be restrained from taking or causing to be taken or participating in the taking of any oral deposition from Alejandro Escalante pursuant to the order dated 9 October 2015 made by the United States District Court, Northern District of California in Case No. 15-mc-80240-JCS permitting discovery pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

4. URS be restrained from taking or causing to be taken or participating in the taking of any oral deposition from Sandra LeDrew pursuant to the order dated 9 October 2015 made by the United States District Court, Northern District of California in Case No. 15-mc-80240-JCS permitting discovery pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

5. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the respondent’s interlocutory application filed on 19 October 2015.

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

Finally, Jones has asserted that many group members (particularly US residents) could opt out of the class action and then invoke § 1782 outside the jurisdictional reach of this Court. Whether such a hypothetical scenario is so is not to the point.Conclusion We would for the foregoing reasons make orders 1 to 4 in the terms sought in TWE’s application. The applicant should pay the respondent’s costs of that application.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.