Wavetrain Systems AS v Next Generation Rail Technologies SL [2019] FCA 350

Wavetrain Systems AS v Next Generation Rail Technologies SL [2019] FCA 350

The affidavits should not be removed from the Court file because doing so would obscure the circumstances in which the Court made interim orders; instead, the untruthful parts should be identified on the file, open access should generally be granted subject to specific non-publication orders, and the papers should be referred to the Commonwealth Attorney-General for investigation into whether criminal proceedings should be brought concerning Mr Foster's untrue evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure; Interlocutory Application for Injunctive Relief / Orders and Reasons After Consent Dismissal Addressing False Affidavit Evidence, Non Publication Orders, Access to Affidavits and Referral for Investigation
Outcome
Orders made setting aside earlier non-publication and confidentiality orders, making narrower non-publication orders, granting open access to affidavits, permitting replacement marked affidavits, and referring the papers to the Commonwealth Attorney-General.
Legal Topics
['false Affidavit Evidence' 'open Justice' 'non Publication Orders' 'confidentiality Orders' "solicitors' Duties to the Court" 'referral for Criminal Investigation']
['practice and Procedure' 'evidence' 'legal Profession' 'commercial and Corporations'] ['false Affidavit Evidence' 'open Justice' 'non Publication Orders' 'confidentiality Orders' "solicitors' Duties to the Court" 'referral for Criminal Investigation']

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

Practice and Procedure; Interlocutory Application for Injunctive Relief / Orders and Reasons After Consent Dismissal Addressing False Affidavit Evidence, Non Publication Orders, Access to Affidavits and Referral for Investigation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether affidavits containing evidence identified as not truthful should remain on the Court file or be removed.' 'Whether earlier non-publication and confidentiality orders should be set aside or replaced with more specific non-publication orders.' 'Whether access should be granted to affidavits filed in the proceedings, including affidavits not read in open court.' 'Whether the papers should be referred to the Commonwealth Attorney-General for investigation into possible criminal proceedings concerning untrue evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The affidavits should not be removed from the Court file because doing so would obscure the circumstances in which the Court made interim orders; instead, the untruthful parts should be identified on the file, open access should generally be granted subject to specific non-publication orders, and the papers should be referred to the Commonwealth Attorney-General for investigation into whether criminal proceedings should be brought concerning Mr Foster's untrue evidence.

Court Disposition

Orders made setting aside earlier non-publication and confidentiality orders, making narrower non-publication orders, granting open access to affidavits, permitting replacement marked affidavits, and referring the papers to the Commonwealth Attorney-General.

Orders

  • ['Orders 5 and 6 of the orders made by Wigney J on 30 January 2019 concerning the non-publication or confidentiality of certain documents be set aside.' 'Until further order, publication of specified material in the Foster affidavit and exhibit MHF-2 be prohibited pursuant to s 37AF of the Federal Court of Australia...