Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Australian Securities & Investments Commission V Yandal Gold Holdings Pty Limited [1999] FCA 567 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to amend statement of claim – introduction of new causes of action – relevance of whether claims likely to succeed where facts sought to be raised form part of the existing controversy before the Court – whether appropriate to grant leave to add a cause of action under s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) to ensure Federal Court has jurisdiction in the matter if High Court overrules Gould v Brown (1998) 72 ALJR 375
Corporations Law s 995 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 52 Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 1989 (Cth) s 12DA Wickstead v Browne (1993) 10 Leg Rep SL 2 – applied Fraser v NRMA Holdings Ltd (1995) 55 FCR 452 – cited
AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION v YANDAL GOLD HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED
V 3094 OF 1999 JUDGE: MERKEL J DATE: 27 APRIL 1999 PLACE: MELBOURNE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 3094 OF 1999
BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION
Applicant
AND: YANDAL GOLD HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED
(ACN 085 189 671)
First Respondent
YANDAL GOLD HOLDINGS PTY LTD
(ACN 085 602 213)
Second Respondent
EDENSOR NOMINEES PTY LTD
(ACN 005 168 516)
Third Respondent
NORMANDY MINING LIMITED
(ACN 009 295 765)
Fourth Respondent
NORMANDY MINING FINANCE LIMITED
(ACN 058 419 604)
Fifth Respondent
NORMANDY CONSOLIDATED GOLD HOLDINGS PTY LTD
(ACN 008 671 252)
Sixth 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