Smith Kline & French Laboratories (Australia) Limited & Ors v Commonwealth of Australia

Case

[1991] HCATrans 223


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Smith Kline & French Laboratories (Australia) Limited & Ors v Commonwealth of Australia [1991] HCATrans 223 [1991] HCATrans 223

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties to this proceeding before the High Court of Australia were Smith Kline & French Laboratories (Australia) Limited and other related entities (the plaintiffs) and the Commonwealth of Australia, represented by the Secretary to the Department of Community Services, and Alphapharm Pty Limited (the defendants). The dispute concerned an application for an interlocutory order, specifically relating to the confidentiality of an exhibit.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether it had the jurisdiction to make an order for confidentiality in relation to an exhibit annexed to an affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory application. The plaintiffs sought an order that the exhibit and its contents be treated as confidential, with inspection limited to counsel and solicitors for the parties, and that it be sealed and marked as confidential within the Court's file.

The Court considered the plaintiffs' request for a confidentiality order. The plaintiffs proposed a form of order that would restrict inspection of the exhibit to legal representatives and ensure it was sealed and marked as confidential. The Solicitor-General for the Commonwealth indicated no objection to the order, noting that the information had already been disclosed to the second respondent and was known to the relevant departments. Counsel for the third defendant also raised no objection. The Court ultimately made the order in the form sought by the plaintiffs, reserving liberty to any interested person to apply to vary or discharge the order.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Civil Procedure

  • Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

  • Jurisdiction

  • Discovery

  • Procedural Fairness

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0