Harvey Norman Holdings Limited v Fels [2001] FCA 888

The need to preserve the confidentiality of the ACCC's investigations outweighs the applicant's preference for its solicitor to inspect the documents, especially where suitable alternatives are available, even if less efficient.

Parties: Applicant: Harvey Norman Holdings Limited; First Respondent: Allan Herbert Miller Fels; Second Respondent: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 05 July 2001
Procedural Posture: Interlocutory Application / Discovery/disclosure Order
Outcome: Application to extend inspection category to applicant's solicitor refused; discovery and inspection to proceed as limited in orders.
Legal Topics: Discovery, Confidentiality of Investigation Documents, Limitations on Inspection of Documents

Competition Law Civil Procedure Discovery Confidentiality of Investigation Documents Limitations on Inspection of Documents

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

Parties

Harvey Norman Holdings Limited

Applicant

Allan Herbert Miller Fels

First Respondent

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Discovery/disclosure Order

Legal Issues

1 Whether an applicant's solicitor can access confidential ACCC investigation materials in discovery
2 Balancing confidentiality of ACCC investigations against applicant's need for discovery

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application to extend inspection category to applicant's solicitor refused; discovery and inspection to proceed as limited in orders.

Orders

Respondents to give discovery in accordance with the Notice of Discovery by 9 July 2001, subject to inspection limits.
Inspection of certain documents limited to named counsel until further order.