Federal Court of Australia
JUDGMENT No. 2227355
CATCHWORDS
Practice and Procedure —- pleadings - application for summary
dismissal of proceedings - application for striking out.
Federal Court Rules Order 11 Rule 23, Order 20 Rule 2, Order i1
Rule 16.
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth.) s.47(6), s.59(2) and s.87.
Dey v. Victorian Railway Commissioners (1949) 78 C.L.R. 62
General Steel Industries Inc. v. Commissioner for Railways
(N.S.W.) (1964) 112 C.L.R. 125 Global Sportsman Pty. Ltd. v. Mirror Newspapers Pty. Ltd. (1984) 2
F.C.R. 82
BURGUNDY ROYALE INVESTMENTS PTY. LIMITED AND ORS. v. JENNINGS
CONSTRUCTION LIMITED.
VG414 of 1987
Sweeney, J. Melbourne
7 July 1988
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY No. VG 414 of 1987
GENERAL DIVISION
BETWEEN: BURGUNDY ROYALE INVESTMENTS PTY.
LIMITED First Applicant THE ESPLANADE PTY. LIMITED Second Applicant KOTA NOMINEES PTY. LIMITED Third Applicant
GOLDENGLOSS PROPERTIES LIMITED Fourth Applicant
AND JENNINGS CONSTRUCTION LIMITED Respondent
THE COURT: Sweeney J.
PLACES Melbourne
DATE
oe
7 July 1988
MINUTES OF ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
Paras 22, 23, 47 and 51 and the word "untrue" in para 51b, be struck out, in each case with leave to replead. Leave is also granted to replead para 31b, so that it will be
consistent with para 51 as repleaded.
i)
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of
the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY No. VG 414 of 1987
GENERAL DIVISION
BETWEEN: BURGUNDY ROYALE INVESTMENTS PTY.
LIMITED First Applicant THE ESPLANADE PTY. LIMITED Second Applicant KOTA NOMINEES PTY. LIMITED Third Applicant
GOLDENGLOSS PROPERTIES LIMITED Fourth Applicant
AND JENNINGS CONSTRUCTION LIMITED Respondent
THE COURT: Sweeney J. PLACES : Melbourne
DATE : 7 duly 1988
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The respondent moves the Court for orders that the proceedings by the applicants be dismissed summarily pursuant to Order 11 Rule 23 and Order 20 Rule 2, or that the whole of the Amended Application and the Further Amended Statement of Claim be struck out pursuant to Order 11 Rule 16, and for an order for
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