Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Central Equity Ltd v Chua [1999] FCA 1067
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether Court has power to order that particulars of defamation and particulars of defence of justification to allegation of defamation be kept confidential and not subject to inspection by members of the public – Federal Court Rules O 46 r 6(1) – exercise of discretion – potential for dissemination of particulars of defamation to cause irreparable pecuniary harm to applicant – effect of prior agreement by respondent's solicitor not to file particulars of defence of justification. Trade Practices Act (1974) (Cth) s 52 Television Broadcasts Ltd v Nguyen (1988) 21 FCR 34 referred to Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417 at 441 referred to Russell v Russell (1976) 134 CLR 495 at 520 referred to R v Tait and Bartley (1979) 24 ALR 473 at 487‑8 referred to
CENTRAL EQUITY LTD (ACN 006 708 738) v DAVID CHUA
V 324 of 1999
WEINBERG J 29 JULY 1999 MELBOURNE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V324 OF 1999
BETWEEN: CENTRAL EQUITY LTD (ACN 006 708 738)
Applicant
AND: DAVID CHUA
Respondent
JUDGE: WEINBERG J
DATE OF ORDER: 29 JULY 1999
WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. Paragraph 18 of the orders made on 23 June 1999 be vacated. 2. The applicant file the particulars of defamation and of misleading and deceptive conduct dated 1 July 1999 by 4 pm on 30 July 1999, such particulars to be filed in a sealed envelope to be marked "Confidential - not to be opened without the leave of a judge of the Court". 3. The respondent file and serve his defence in the form of the defence exhibited to the affidavit of Nathan Kuperholz, sworn 28 July 1999 as Exhibit "NK2" without the particulars subjoined to paragraph 17, by 4 pm on 30 July 1999. 4. The respondent file and serve full and proper particulars of the allegations contained in paragraph 17 of the defence by 4 pm on 4 August 1999, such particulars to be filed in a sealed envelope to be marked "Confidential - not to be opened without the leave of a judge of the Court". 5. The applicant file and serve any reply by 4 pm on 11 August 1999. 6. The directions hearing be adjourned to 9.30 am on Wednesday 18 August 1999. 7. Liberty to apply. 8. Costs reserved.
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