Federal Court of Australia
CATCHWORDS PLEADINGS - application to amend defence - defence containing deemed admissions made in error - pleadings closed in the Supreme Court of South Australia - whether pleadings to be construed by reference to the South Australian Supreme Court rules or the Federal Court Rules - pleadings to be construed against background of rules of court pursuant to which it was brought into being
TRANSFERRED ACTION - action transferred from Supreme Court of South Australia to Federal Court of Australia - pleadings closed in transferor court - whether to be construed by reference to rules of transferor court or transferee court Supreme Court Rules 1987 (S.A.), R 21.06 and R 46.12 Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (Cth), ss 11(1) and (3) Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth), O 9 r 7, O 10 r 1 and O 10A r 5 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) Commonwealth Constitution Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) Moorgate Tobacco Company Limited v Phillip Morris Limited and Anor (1980) 145 CLR 457 David Syme & Co Ltd (Receiver and Manager Appointed) v Grey (1992) 38 FCR 303 No. SG 30 of 1995 ROBERT & LORNA ABROOK & ORS v GREG PATERSON & ORS, WILLIAM JOHN EAST as Administrator of the Family Security Friendly Society and PATRICK FINAN & ORS Branson J Adelaide 2 August 1995
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. SG 30 of 1995 ) GENERAL DIVISION )
BETWEEN: ROBERT & LORNA ABROOK & ORS Applicants - and - GREG PATERSON & ORS. First to Seventh Respondents - and - WILLIAM JOHN EAST as Administrator of the Family Security Friendly Society Eighth Respondent - and - PATRICK FINAN & ORS Cross-Respondents REASONS FOR DECISION CORAM: Branson J PLACE: Adelaide DATE: 2 August 1995
Two motions in this matter were listed for hearing together. By the first the applicants seek certain orders clarifying the extent, if any, to which the South Australian Supreme Court Rules ("the Supreme Court Rules") have continuing application in respect of this matter. By Notice of Motion dated 27 July 1995 the first to seventh respondents ("Horwaths") seek leave to amend their defence. The reason why it was considered appropriate for the two motions to be heard together is
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