Federal Court of Australia
JUDGMENT No. 73.74.2283
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
) ) WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT PEGISTRY) No. WAG 114 of 1986 ) : GENERAL DIVISION )
BETWEEN:
BOND CORPORATION PTY. LIMITED
Applicant
THIESS CONTRACTORS Pry. LIMITED
First Respondent
OVE ARUP PTY. LIMITED, ARUP PARTNERS PTY. LIMITED and OVE ARUP CONSULTANTS PTY. LIMITED
Second Respondents
MINUTES OF ORDER
JUDGES MAKING ORDER: BOWEN, C.J., SHEPPARD and LEE JJ.
DATE OF ORDER 2 9 MARCH 1988
WHERE MADE PERTH
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: -
L. The applicant's motice of motion of 4 February 1988 seeking
leave to appeal against the order of French J. made on 20
January 1988 be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondents' costs of the motion.
NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 "ae
of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDEPAL COUPT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTPALIA DISTRICT REGISTPY No. WAG 114 of 1996
SENEPAL DIVISTON
BETWEEN: BOND CORPORATION Pry. LIMITED
Applicant THIESS CONTRACTORS PTY. LIMITED
First Respondent
OVE ARUP PTY. LIMITED, ARUP PARTNERS PTY. LIMITED and
OVE ARUP CONSULTANTS PTY. LIMITED
Second Respondents
THE COURT: BOWEN, C.J., SHEPPARD and LEE JJ. DATE: 9 March 1989
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is a notice of motion seeking leave to appeal against an order made by French J. on 20 January 1988. The application is made by the applicant ("Bond") which has sued the first respondent ("Thiess") for causes of action under the Trade Practices Act 1974 and for breach of contract. Sond has also cued the second respondents ("Qve Arup") in the same proceedings but they are not concerned with the matters which arise for
consideration in the present motion.
2.
The background to the matter is this. On 24 February 1987 French J. made an order rectraining Thiess from prosecuting an arbitration between uit and Bond in accordance with a netice of vefererce t2 arbitration served by Thiess on 12 September 1986. The notice was given pursuant tec an arbitration cause, clause 49, in certain gztneral conditions of centract which were annexed to and formed part of a contract made on 12 March 1985 whereby Bond engaged Thiess to carry out certain civil engineering work on land at Millendon in Western Australia. The causes of action relied upon by Bond against Thiess in the principal proceedings
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