Federal Court of Australia
"-n
JUDGMENT No. watt Sk
CATCHWORDS
Evidence - admissibility - public document - returns of directors lodged with Commissioner for Corporate Affairs
Req. v. Halpin £19753 Q.B. 907 followed
Evidence - admissibility - statement in pleading in other proceedings inadmissible as an admission by party on whose behalf
pleading delivered or filed
Boileau v. Rutlin (1848) 2 Ex. 665; 154 E.R.
657 and Buckmaster v. Meiklejohn (1853) 8 Ex.
634; 155 E.R. 1056 followed
Singleton v. John Fairfax & Sons Ltd. £19821 2
N.S.W.L.R. 38 not followed. Federal Court - jurisdiction - "accrued" jurisdiction Practice and Procedure - pleadings - amendment - Rule in Weldon v.
Neal
Practice and Procedure - Federal Court - third parties - directions as to participation in trial
Federal Court Rules Order 5 Rule 12(2)
STOHL AVIATION V. ELECTRUM FINANCE PTY. LTD.; ELECTRUM FINANCE PTY. LTD. V. TARAK MANAGEMENT SERVICES PTY. LTD. AND ORS.
No. G38 of 1982
CORAM: Mr. Justice Jenkinson PLACE: Adelaide DATE: 16 October, 1984
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIAN DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
BETWEEN :
AND:
) ) NO. G38 OF 1982 )
STOHL AVIATION
Applicants
ELECTRUM FINANCE Pry.
AND:
LTD. Respondent /Cross-Claimant
TARAK MANAGEMENT SERVICES Pry. ETD.
First Cross Respondent
CORPORATE CONSULTANTS
AND:
INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
Pry.
Second Cross Respondent
EDWARD CHRISTIAAN SENT
CORAM: Mr. Justice Jenkinson PLACE: Adelaide DATE: 16 October, 1984
Third Cross Respondent JON DEAN WILSON
Fourth Cross Respondent TREVOR BURTON HUTTLEY Fifth Cross Respondent DONALD BROWNLIE FLEMING
Sixth Cross Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The hearing together of
originating process and of the
the applicants'
claims on the
respondent's cross-claims against
2.
the cross-respondents, other than Corporate Consultants International Pty. Ltd., is proceeding before me. I have been informed that Corporate Consultants International Pty. Ltd. 15 in course of being wound up. Each of the other cross-respondents, of whom only three have appeared at trial, filed a defence which put in issue between respondent and cross~respondent some of the allegations which the applicants must prove in order to establish their claims against the respondent, as well as allegations peculiar to the respondent's cross-claim against him. No exercise had occurred before trial of any of the powers conferred on the court by paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and (f) of Order 5 Rule 12(2) of the Rules. While the trials have proceeded thus far leave has been given, without objection by any party, to those three cross-respondents to appear at the trial of the claims on the originating process and to cross-examine witnesses for the applicants and to tender documents in evidence in the course of cross-examination. And I have heard submissions by 'all parties appearing at the trials as to what further or other directions
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