Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Echo Tasmania Pty Ltd v Imperial Chemical Industries PLC [2008] FCAFC 58
JUDGMENTS – whether primary Judge failed to give adequate reasons for making orders on application for preliminary discovery
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to appeal from orders for preliminary discovery – whether sufficient evidence to establish that the respondent had reasonable cause to believe that it may have a right to obtain relief
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 24(1A) Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 52 Federal Court Rules, O 15A r 6
Beale v Government Insurance Office of New South Wales (1997) 48 NSWLR 430 followed Bourke v Beneficial Finance Corporation Ltd (1993) 47 FCR 264 discussed Décor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397 cited St George Bank Ltd v Rabo Australia Ltd (2004) 211 ALR 147 followed Malouf v Malouf (1999) 86 FCR 134 cited Mount Lawley Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission [2004] WASCA 149 referred to Paxus Services Ltd v People Bank Pty Ltd (1990) 90 ALR 728 cited Public Service Board v Osmond (1986) 159 CLR 656 followed
ECHO TASMANIA PTY LTD v IMPERIAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES PLC & ANOR NSD 2291 OF 2007
black cj, SACKVILLE & emmett jJ
11 APRIL 2008
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2291 OF 2007
BETWEEN: ECHO TASMANIA PTY LTD
Applicant
AND: IMPERIAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES PLC
First Respondent
DELOITTE GROWTH SOLUTIONS PTY LTD
Second Respondent
JUDGES: BLACK CJ, SACKVILLE & EMMETT jj DATE OF ORDER: 11 APRIL 2008
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The applicant be granted leave to appeal from the judgment of Graham J given on 13 November 2007. 2. The appeal be allowed in part. 3. The first respondent, within seven days, bring in short minutes of order consistent with these reasons. 4. If the applicant objects to the form of the short minutes of order, it should file, within a further seven days, brief written submissions outlining its grounds of opposition. 5. If either party wishes to contend for costs orders otherwise than those foreshadowed in paragraph 71 of the judgment, they should file written submissions in accordance with the timetable outlined in orders 3 and 4.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate