Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Practice and Procedure - application to amend pleadings - case management considerations.
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 - s 22
RONALD IAN McCARTHY & OTHERS V NEVILLE McINTYRE & OTHERS
Ng 672 of 1996
judge: beaumont j
place: SYDNEY
date: 6 nOVEMber 1997
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NG 672 of 1996
BETWEEN: RONALD IAN MCCARTHY
First Applicant
MAXWELL MCCARTHY
Second Applicant
EDLAN NO. 54 PTY LIMITED
Third Applicant
AND: NEVILLE MCINTYRE
FIRST RESpondent
AURO ROMANO MCINTYRE
SECOND RESPONDENT
NEVITORO INVESTMENTS PTY LIMITED
THIRD RESPONDENT
ITALA BELINDA MCINTYRE
FOURTH RESPONDENT
CHERYL GAI MCINTYRE
FIFTH RESPONDENT
JUDGE: BEAUMONT J
DATE OF ORDER: 6 NOVEMBER 1997
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
ORDERS: 1. Leave granted to the applicants to file the amended application and amended statement of claim now before the Court. 2. Direct that there be a separate trial of the three causes of action alleged in the amended statement of claim. 3. Direct that discovery proceed separately in respect of each of the three causes of action relied upon by the applicants. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NG 672 of 1996
BETWEEN: RONALD IAN MCCARTHY
First Applicant
MAXWELL MCCARTHY
Second Applicant
EDLAN NO. 54 PTY LIMITED
Third Applicant
AND: NEVILLE MCINTYRE
FIRST Respondent
AURO ROMANO MCINTYRE
SECOND RESPONDENT
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