Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - application for further and better particulars - where allegations of fraud, deceit and deliberate misconduct - where application made at a very late stage of the interlocutory proceedings - whether particulars are adequate - whether respondents must be taken to be aware of the nature of the case being made - whether dates for filing witness statements should be extended PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - anti-suit injunction - application for restraining order to prevent applicants seeking orders of United States District Court in relation to discovery of documents and deposition of witnesses - where United States District Court had previously granted a conditional stay of proceedings and retained jurisdiction in relation to those conditions - whether application would interfere with the proper exercise of jurisdiction of Federal Court - whether taking of depositions might unreasonably annoy, embarrass or oppress any deponent or party PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - application to have overseas witnesses available to give evidence at the trial - where no specific application - application for a list of witnesses whom respondents intend to call - whether request reasonable - application for order restraining destruction of documents - responsibility of legal advisers to preserve documents which may have to be disclosed for legal proceedings PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW - choice of law - application to have choice of law determined as a preliminary issue - whether determination of choice of law will narrow the ambit and duration of the hearing Federal Court Rules, O 12, rr 3, 5 Banque Commerciale SA (en liquidation) v Akhil Holdings Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 279, cited Astrovlanis Compania Naviera SA v Linard [1972] 2 QB 611, cited Rocklea Spinning Mills Pty Ltd v Anti-Dumping Authority (1995) 56 FCR 406, distinguished Tilling v Whiteman [1980] AC 1, distinguished Stangvik v Shiley Inc (1991) 54 Cal 3d 744, cited Stangvik v Shiley Inc (1990) 273 Cal Rptr 179, cited National Mutual Holdings Pty Ltd v Sentry Corporation (1989) 22 FCR 209, distinguished Allstate Life Insurance Co v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (No 4) (1996) 64 FCR 61, distinguished South Carolina Insurance Co v Assurantie Maatschappij "De Zevern Provincien" NV [1987] AC 24, cited
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