Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft (No 2) [2020] FCA 661

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.

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

Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Suppression Order

  1. 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.']