Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Allam v Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCAFC 75 Citation: Allam v Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCAFC 75
Appeal from: Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Global Gaming Supplies Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 1495
Parties: RIAD ALLAM v ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED (ACN 001 660 715), ARISTOCRAT INTERNATIONAL PTY LIMITED (ACN 000 148 158), ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES INC, GLOBAL GAMING SUPPLIES PTY LTD (ACN 008 548 589), ANTHONY EDWARD ANDREWS, IMPACT GAMING PTY LTD (ACN 109 299 461) and FRANCIS GEORGE BERNARD CRAGEN GLOBAL GAMING SUPPLIES PTY LTD (ACN 008 548 589), ANTHONY EDWARD ANDREWS, IMPACT GAMING PTY LTD (ACN 109 299 461) and FRANCIS GEORGE BERNARD CRAGEN v ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 001 660 715), ARISTOCRAT INTERNATIONAL PTY LIMITED (ACN 000 148 158) and ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES INC
File number(s): NSD 292 of 2010 NSD 293 of 2010
Judges: BENNETT, MIDDLETON AND YATES JJ
Date of judgment: 25 May 2012
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – scope of remittal to the primary judge EVIDENCE – whether s 94(3) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) precluded the application of s 97 – whether further submissions should be received as to the applicability of s 97 to the admissibility of "impugned" emails in circumstances where no ground of appeal relied on s 97 COSTS – where appeals successful but the appellants were not successful on a substantial number of issues raised
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