Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Lindon v Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers [2001] FCA 265 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – ex parte application for leave to file application – whether proceeding abuse of process – whether claim against proposed respondents foredoomed to fail
Federal Court Rules: O 20, O 46 r7A
Mitanis v Pioneer Concrete (Vic) Pty Ltd (1997) ATPR 41‑591 Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378 LEN LINDON v INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS & ORS V 176 of 2001 GOLDBERG J 9 MARCH 2001 MELBOURNE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 176 of 2001
BETWEEN: LEN LINDON
Applicant
AND: INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS
First Respondent
LOUIS TOUTON
Second Respondent
VINT CERF
Third Respondent
ESTHER DYSON
Fourth Respondent
ICANN MELBOURNE MEETINGS HOST COMMITTEE
Fifth Respondent
au DOMAIN ADMINISTRATION LTD
Sixth Respondent
TONY STALEY
Seventh Respondent
GREG CREW
Eighth Respondent
CHRIS DISSPAIN
Ninth Respondent
PROFESSOR PETER GERRAND
Tenth Respondent
AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION
Eleventh Respondent
MICHAEL COSGRAVE
Twelfth Respondent
JUDGE: GOLDBERG J
DATE OF ORDER: 9 MARCH 2001
WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The notice of motion filed 9 March 2001 be dismissed. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 176 of 2001
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