Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi Energia S.R.L. (No 3) [2012] FCA 248

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi Energia S.R.L. (No 3) [2012] FCA 248

Because the applicant and the second respondent were each partly successful on the issues concerning legal professional privilege and waiver, and neither party was wholly successful, the proper order was that there be no order for costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Application by the Second Respondent for Costs of Its Application for Inspection of Documents Referred to in Two Notices to Produce / Heard on the Papers
Outcome
No order for costs.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'inspection of Documents' 'notices to Produce' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'waiver of Privilege']
['civil Procedure' 'evidence'] ['costs' 'inspection of Documents' 'notices to Produce' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'waiver of Privilege']

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

Application by the Second Respondent for Costs of Its Application for Inspection of Documents Referred to in Two Notices to Produce / Heard on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the second respondent should receive costs of its application for inspection of documents where neither party was wholly successful.' 'Whether documents referred to in notices to produce were protected by legal professional privilege.' 'Whether litigation was reasonably anticipated when the documents were created.' 'Whether the ACCC waived legal professional privilege in respect of a class of documents.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the applicant and the second respondent were each partly successful on the issues concerning legal professional privilege and waiver, and neither party was wholly successful, the proper order was that there be no order for costs.

Court Disposition

No order for costs.

Orders

  • ['There be no order for costs.']