Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
King v GIO Australia Holdings Ltd [2001] FCA 270
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – representative proceedings – form of opt-out notices – whether notice misleading by giving impression that group members represented by representative party's lawyers for all aspects of proceedings – whether notice should refer to costs consequences of group member not opting out of the proceedings Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 33J, 33Q, 33R, 33X, 33ZJ Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 82 King v GIO Australia Holdings Ltd (2000) 100 FCR 209 referred to Décor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397 referred to House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 referred to Femcare Ltd v Bright (2000) 100 FCR 331 referred to Australian Law Reform Commission, Grouped Proceedings in the Federal Court (ALRC 46) SHANE ROBERT KING v GIO AUSTRALIA HOLDINGS LTD & ORS N 955 of 1999 SACKVILLE, HELY & STONE JJ SYDNEY 20 MARCH 2001
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 955 OF 1999
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SHANE ROBERT KING
APPLICANT
AND: GIO AUSTRALIA HOLDINGS LTD
FIRST RESPONDENT
GRANT SAMUEL & ASSOCIATES PTY LIMITED
SECOND RESPONDENT
DAVID MORTIMER
THIRD RESPONDENT
BRUCE HOGAN
FOURTH RESPONDENT
STEWART STEFFEY
FIFTH RESPONDENT
RONALD ASHTON
SIXTH RESPONDENT
MARINA DARLING
SEVENTH RESPONDENT
ANDREW KALDOR
EIGHTH RESPONDENT
LLOYD LANGE
NINTH RESPONDENT
DAVID O'HALLORAN
TENTH RESPONDENT
IAN POLLARD
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