Scam alert – fraudulent email address ‘subpoena@hcourt.gov.au’

The Court is aware of a scam involving the use of a fraudulent email address purporting to be an official High Court email address – ‘subpoena@hcourt.gov.au’ 

This email address is not associated with, authorised by, or operated by the Court. 

Recipients of emails from this account should exercise caution and should not click on links, open attachments or provide personal or financial information. 

Commonwealth of Australia v Sanofi

[2024] HCA 47
Judgment date
Case number
S169/2023
Before
Gordon ACJ, Edelman, Steward, Jagot, Beech-Jones JJ
Catchwords

Damages – Undertaking as to damages – Where interlocutory injunction obtained to prevent manufacture or sale of generic pharmaceutical products – Where compensation sought for loss suffered as result of generic products not being listed on Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme ("PBS") – Whether generic products would have been listed on PBS but for interlocutory injunction – Counter-factual approach – Whether onus of proof discharged.

Appeals – Standard of review – Ultimate appellate court – Where concurrent factual findings of lower courts – Whether special or exceptional circumstances – Whether plain injustice or clear error – Whether concurrent findings not clearly wrong – Whether concurrent findings open and compelling.

Onus of proof – Shifting evidential onus – Whether rigid legal rule applied for proof of loss arising from undertaking as to damages.

Words and phrases – "clear error", "concurrent findings", "counter-factual", "evidential onus", "interlocutory injunction", "onus of proof", "plain injustice", "special or exceptional circumstances", "standard of review", "ultimate appellate court", "undertaking as to damages".

National Health Act 1953 (Cth) – ss 99ACB, 99ACH.