Nexans SA RCS Paris 393 525 852 v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2014] FCA 255

Nexans SA RCS Paris 393 525 852 v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2014] FCA 255

The application for leave to appeal was refused as the primary judgment was not attended by sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration by the Full Court. The principle of comity was applied; the Hague Convention was not a reasonable substitute for standard discovery under Australian rules; and the risk of prosecution under the French Blocking Statute was remote. No material error in the exercise of discretion was established.

Parties
Applicant: Nexans SA RCS Paris 393 525 852; First Respondent: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; Second Respondent: Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi Energia SRL (formerly Pirelli Cavi E Sistemi Energia SPA); Third Respondent: Viscas Corporation ARBN 133 203 595
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Discovery, Conflict of Laws, Comity, Interlocutory Appeals, Hague Convention, French Blocking Statute
Practice and Procedure Competition Law International Law Discovery Conflict of Laws Comity Interlocutory Appeals Hague Convention +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nexans SA RCS Paris 393 525 852

Applicant

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

First Respondent

Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi Energia SRL (formerly Pirelli Cavi E Sistemi Energia SPA)

Second Respondent

Viscas Corporation ARBN 133 203 595

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted from an interlocutory judgment refusing to discharge/modify a discovery order in light of conflicting Australian and French laws
  2. 2 Whether the principle of comity and avoidance of conflicting obligations was properly applied
  3. 3 Whether the Hague Convention is a reasonable substitute for Australian discovery

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal was refused as the primary judgment was not attended by sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration by the Full Court. The principle of comity was applied; the Hague Convention was not a reasonable substitute for standard discovery under Australian rules; and the risk of prosecution under the French Blocking Statute was remote. No material error in the exercise of discretion was established.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is refused.