Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for reopening of a case after reasons published but not entered – medical condition of witness said to have become apparent only after reasons published – whether adjournment should be granted to gather further medical evidence – whether that evidence could affect the findings made. ANDREW CRAIG ASHTON v MAXWELL WILLIAM PRENTICE & ORS NG 8183 of 1997 HILL J SYDNEY 20 NOVEMBER 1998
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NG 8183 of 1997
BETWEEN: andrew craig ashton
Applicant
AND: maxwell william prentice
Respondent
MAXWELL WILLIAM PRENTICE
Cross Claimant
ANDREW CRAIG ASHTON
First Cross Respondent
ERIC ABRAHAM JURY (SNR)
Second Cross Respondent
SONIA SADIE JURY
Third Cross Respondent
WILLIAM ABRAHAM JURY
Fourth Cross Respondent
HOUDA JURY
Fifth Cross Respondent
JUDGE: HILL J
DATE OF ORDER: 20 NOVEMBER 1998
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE court ORDERS that:
1. The Application for adjournment of the motion be dismissed. 2. The motion be dismissed. 3. The Applicant pay the Respondent's costs of the motion. 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 8183 of 1997
BETWEEN: andrew craig ashton
Applicant
AND: maxwell william prentice
Respondent
MAXWELL WILLIAM PRENTICE
Cross Claimant
ANDREW CRAIG ASHTON
First Cross Respondent
ERIC ABRAHAM JURY (SNR)
Second Cross 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