Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Reckitt Benckiser

SCHEDULE Documents behind the following tabs of the Court Book ("CB"): Tab Description Part of document over which the order is sought 27 Document entitled "Analgesics 4P Strategy Australia" CB pages 403, 404, 405 and 407 30 Document entitled "Analgesics 4P Strategy Australia dated 23 May 2013" attached to letter from Ben Brooke-Cowden (Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd) to ACCC CB pages 451, 452, 453 and 454 31 Document entitled "Analgesics 4P Strategy Australia" CB pages 472, 473, 474 and 476 112 Reckitt Benckiser 2012 PDE Member Programme Whole document 116 Reckitt Benckiser 2015 PDE Member Program Whole document 119 Email from K Marshall to G Reyes - Subject: RB 2011 PDE terms Whole document 121 Reckitt Benckiser 2012 PDE Member Programme Whole document 122 Reckitt Benckiser 2013 PDE Member Programme Whole document 123 Reckitt Benckiser 2014 PDE Member Programme Whole document 124 Reckitt Benckiser 2015 PDE Member Program Whole document 126 Reckitt Benckiser 2012 PDE Member Programme Whole document 127 Reckitt Benckiser 2015 PDE Member Program Whole document 136 Email from S Zugic to I Dunn forwarding email from T Foster to S Zugic dated 15 August 2014 and attachment entitled "LAYOUT FLOW RECO.ppt" CB pages 1503 and 1504

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 180 of 2015

BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION

AND: RECKITT BENCKISER (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD (ACN 003 274 655)

JUDGE: EDELMAN J DATE: 9 DECEMBER 2015 PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This application for confidentiality orders was scheduled for hearing yesterday, immediately before trial. Shortly before yesterday's hearing the parties agreed to this matter being determined on the papers. These are my reasons for the confidentiality orders that will govern the trial that commences this morning. 2 The interlocutory orders are sought pursuant to s 37AF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) to give effect to a confidentiality regime. The orders are sought on the ground that orders to preserve the non-disclosure of certain information which may be tendered at the trial commencing today is necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice (see s 37AG(1)(a)). 3 The proposed confidentiality regime has been carefully formulated to avoid concerns I raised in a separate third party application in these proceedings: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] FCA 1274. I am satisfied that the regime is an appropriate one if the jurisdictional condition in s 37AG(1)(a) is met. 4 The orders sought concern fourteen documents, or parts of documents. They can be divided into two groups. Group 1 is the documents at tabs 112, 116, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126, 127 about which the orders were not opposed by the ACCC. Group 2 is the documents at tabs 27, 30, 31, and 136 where the order in relation to which was initially opposed by the ACCC but, after conferral, was not opposed. 5 The basis upon which confidentiality is asserted varies from document to document. But, broadly, group 1 documents concern marketing initiatives and objectives by the respondent in relation to new or existing product lines and group 2 documents concern either the same matters or matters involving commercially sensitive pricing strategies and information about the respondent's pricing of its products. 6 These marketing initiatives and pricing strategies occur in a highly competitive market where the respondent seeks to maximise profit by product differentiation. The respondent's affidavit evidence from its legal director is to the effect that in this environment, the disclosure of the confidential information in these documents could impact upon that competitive advantage and could also adversely affect its relationships with its retail customers. 7 In Hogan v Australian Crime Commission [2010] HCA 21; (2010) 240 CLR 651, 666 [38], a joint judgment of the High Court quoted from the reasons of Jessup J in the Full Court, Hogan v Australian Crime Commission [2009] FCAFC 71; (2009) 177 FCR 205, 220-221 [42], including the following passage the question will always be: is an order necessary to prevent prejudice to the administration of justice? Absent an affirmative answer to this question it is, in my view, almost meaningless to propose that documents themselves are, or that the information in them is, inherently confidential to an extent justifying, or assisting in the justification of, the making of an order permanently protecting them from public view. 8 Those remarks were made about s 50 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) as it then stood. But they apply equally to s 37AF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) read with s 37AG(1)(a). Read together those sections broadly provide power including power to prohibit or restrict disclosure of material including evidence or material obtained on discovery where "the order is necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice". 9 In the circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that the information over which the orders are sought is commercially sensitive, and confidential, information. I also accept the uncontested evidence which I have described about the effects of its disclosure. 10 One relevant factor in applications of this nature is that this court should not willingly permit the disclosure of information in a manner in which the litigation could "become a vehicle for advantaging or prejudicing trade rivals": Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Origin Energy Electricity Ltd [2015] FCA 278 [148] (Katzmann J); Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Cement Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] FCA 1082 [23] (Greenwood J). 11 On the other hand, my preliminary view, with the aid of written but not oral submissions, is that these documents might be, at best, of only marginal relevance to this litigation. If the tender of peripherally relevant, but confidential, documents were proposed by the respondent then there might be issues concerning whether orders giving effect to a confidentiality regime which goes beyond the protection which the general law concerning confidentiality would otherwise provide are "necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice". But the tender of these documents is proposed by the applicant. In these circumstances I am prepared to make the orders in the terms sought. I certify that the preceding eleven (11) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Edelman.