Schutz DSL (Australia) Pty Ltd (ACN 009 069 907) v VIP Plastic Packaging Pty Ltd (ACN 095 313 705) (No 4) [2009] FCA 1541

Schutz DSL (Australia) Pty Ltd (ACN 009 069 907) v VIP Plastic Packaging Pty Ltd (ACN 095 313 705) (No 4) [2009] FCA 1541

Schutz did not provide new evidence of any elevated risk or danger not already considered in the previous orders; therefore, there was no proper basis to extend the Norwich Pharmacal Order or grant additional relief.

Parties
First Applicant: Schutz DSL (Australia) Pty Ltd (ACN 009 069 907); Second Applicant: Schutz GmbH & Co KGAA; Third Applicant: Protechna S.A.; First Respondent: VIP Plastic Packaging Pty Ltd (ACN 095 313 705); Second Respondent: VIP Steel Packaging Pty Ltd (ACN 095 314 195)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Motion / Motion for Additional Norwich Pharmacal Order
Outcome
motion dismissed
Legal Topics
Norwich Pharmacal Order, Disclosure of Customer Details, Fresh Evidence, Extension of Existing Orders
Practice and Procedure Norwich Pharmacal Order Disclosure of Customer Details Fresh Evidence Extension of Existing Orders

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Schutz DSL (Australia) Pty Ltd (ACN 009 069 907)

First Applicant

Schutz GmbH & Co KGAA

Second Applicant

Protechna S.A.

Third Applicant

VIP Plastic Packaging Pty Ltd (ACN 095 313 705)

First Respondent

VIP Steel Packaging Pty Ltd (ACN 095 314 195)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Motion / Motion for Additional Norwich Pharmacal Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether additional Norwich Pharmacal Order should be granted to require broader disclosure by respondents
  2. 2 Whether fresh evidence justifies extension of the order

Ratio Decidendi

Schutz did not provide new evidence of any elevated risk or danger not already considered in the previous orders; therefore, there was no proper basis to extend the Norwich Pharmacal Order or grant additional relief.

Court Disposition

motion dismissed

Orders

  • The motion be dismissed.
  • The applicants are to pay two-thirds of the respondents' costs of the motion, to be taxed if not agreed.