Jones v Treasury Wine Estates Ltd

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.