Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft (No 2) [2020] FCA 661
VWAG did not justify the necessity of a suppression order, as the profit figure alone, without supporting data, would not cause the harm alleged and relates to historic periods. Safeguarding the public interest in open justice prevails; thus, the application for suppression is refused.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 15 May 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Suppression Order
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['suppression Order' 'non Publication Order' 'open Justice' 'australian Consumer Law' 'penalty Hearing']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Suppression Order
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the Court should make a suppression order under ss 37AE, 37AF, and 37AG of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) regarding confidential profit figures in an affidavit relied on at a penalty hearing for admitted contraventions of the Australian Consumer Law']
Ratio Decidendi
VWAG did not justify the necessity of a suppression order, as the profit figure alone, without supporting data, would not cause the harm alleged and relates to historic periods. Safeguarding the public interest in open justice prevails; thus, the application for suppression is refused.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- ['The Interlocutory Application filed by the first respondent on 12 March 2020 be dismissed.' 'By 22 May 2020, the first respondent file a copy of the affidavit of Jens Heinemann sworn on 29 October 2019 and filed on 14 November 2019 in unredacted form.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment