ALDI Stores v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Limited 2010] FCA 563

ALDI Stores v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Limited 2010] FCA 563

Coles did not establish, on the evidence before the Court, that the contested material in Ms Shelton's affidavit had the necessary quality of confidence requiring special confidentiality orders beyond the implied undertaking. The disputed material was largely descriptive of commercially available information or obvious research methods involving members of the public who were not shown to be bound by confidentiality, subject to limited redactions accepted by ALDI and an opportunity for Coles to file further evidence concerning paragraph 10.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Proceedings Concerning Comparative Advertising Alleged to Be Misleading and Deceptive, Including a Cross Claim / Interlocutory Application Concerning Confidentiality of Affidavit Evidence
Outcome
Confidentiality orders were refused on the evidence then before the Court, with limited interim protection and leave for Coles to file further affidavit evidence about paragraph 10 of Ms Shelton's affidavit.
Legal Topics
['confidentiality Orders' 'open Justice' 'implied Undertaking as to Confidentiality' 'comparative Advertising' 'misleading and Deceptive Advertising']
['civil Procedure' 'consumer Law' 'confidential Information'] ['confidentiality Orders' 'open Justice' 'implied Undertaking as to Confidentiality' 'comparative Advertising' 'misleading and Deceptive Advertising']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Proceedings Concerning Comparative Advertising Alleged to Be Misleading and Deceptive, Including a Cross Claim / Interlocutory Application Concerning Confidentiality of Affidavit Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether contested parts of Diane Marie Shelton's affidavit should remain subject to confidentiality restrictions beyond the implied undertaking as to confidentiality." 'Whether Coles had established that the disputed information had the necessary attribute of confidentiality.' 'Whether ALDI should be permitted to provide copies of the affidavits to its staff and other persons for the purposes only of conducting the litigation.']

Ratio Decidendi

Coles did not establish, on the evidence before the Court, that the contested material in Ms Shelton's affidavit had the necessary quality of confidence requiring special confidentiality orders beyond the implied undertaking. The disputed material was largely descriptive of commercially available information or obvious research methods involving members of the public who were not shown to be bound by confidentiality, subject to limited redactions accepted by ALDI and an opportunity for Coles to file further evidence concerning paragraph 10.

Court Disposition

Confidentiality orders were refused on the evidence then before the Court, with limited interim protection and leave for Coles to file further affidavit evidence about paragraph 10 of Ms Shelton's affidavit.

Orders

  • ['Leave be granted to the respondent/cross-claimant to file and serve on or before 4 June 2010 any further affidavit evidence in support of its claim for confidentiality of the contents of paragraph 10 of the affidavit of Diane Marie Shelton, sworn 13 May 2010.' 'Upon the respondent/cross-claimant by its senior...