Federal Treasury Enterprise (FKP) Sojuzplodoimport v Spirits International N.V. [2007] FCAFC 43

Federal Treasury Enterprise (FKP) Sojuzplodoimport v Spirits International N.V. [2007] FCAFC 43

The order for discovery was set aside because the primary judge did not exercise sufficient caution regarding intrusion on the sovereignty of a foreign state, as comity dictates. The correct approach would have allowed the Russian Federation an opportunity to cooperate voluntarily before ordering discovery.

Parties
First Appellant: Federal Treasury Enterprise (FKP) Sojuzplodoimport; Second Appellant: Federal Public Unitary Enterprise External Economic Union Sojuzplodoimport (FGUP VO); First Respondent: Spirits International N.V. (Registered in the Netherlands Antilles, Company No 1060883); Second Respondent: Diageo Australia Limited (ACN 004 167 720)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; discovery order set aside.
Legal Topics
Discovery Against Third Party, Orders Seeking Discovery From Foreign State, Comity
Practice and Procedure Discovery Against Third Party Orders Seeking Discovery From Foreign State Comity

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Federal Treasury Enterprise (FKP) Sojuzplodoimport

First Appellant

Federal Public Unitary Enterprise External Economic Union Sojuzplodoimport (FGUP VO)

Second Appellant

Spirits International N.V. (Registered in the Netherlands Antilles, Company No 1060883)

First Respondent

Diageo Australia Limited (ACN 004 167 720)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it was appropriate for the Court to require discovery from a foreign state not party to proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the order constituted an inappropriate intrusion upon the sovereignty of a foreign state.
  3. 3 Whether the Court had power and exercised discretion properly in relation to discovery orders against entities connected to a foreign state.

Ratio Decidendi

The order for discovery was set aside because the primary judge did not exercise sufficient caution regarding intrusion on the sovereignty of a foreign state, as comity dictates. The correct approach would have allowed the Russian Federation an opportunity to cooperate voluntarily before ordering discovery.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; discovery order set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal be allowed.
  • Orders 1 and 2 made on 5 September 2006 be set aside.