Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Dudzinski v Kellow [2002] FCA 266 WALDEMAR DUDZINSKI v AYNSLEY KELLOW and OTHERS No Q 7003 of 2002 SPENDER J BRISBANE 15 MARCH 2002
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY Q 7003 OF 2002
BETWEEN: WALDEMAR DUDZINSKI
APPLICANT
AND: AYNSLEY KELLOW
FIRST RESPONDENT
ROY RICKSON
SECOND RESPONDENT
ERROL STOCK
THIRD RESPONDENT
BILL HOGARTH
FOURTH RESPONDENT
CORDIA CHU
FIFTH RESPONDENT
KEES HULSMAN
SIXTH RESPONDENT
LYN HOLMAN
SEVENTH RESPONDENT
COLLIN McANDREW
EIGHTH RESPONDENT
JOHN SCOTT
NINTH RESPONDENT
GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY
TENTH RESPONDENT
JUDGE: SPENDER J
DATE OF ORDER: 15 MARCH 2002
WHERE MADE: BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. Any further material on which Mr Dudzinski wishes to rely be filed and served within 21 days of today. 2. Any material on which the respondents wish to rely be filed within a further 21 days. 3. The matter then be listed by the Registrar for hearing. 4. The costs of and incidental to the written submissions ordered by Deputy District Registrar Baldwin and any costs of the directions in 1, 2 and 3 above be costs in the proceedings.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY Q 7003 OF 2002
BETWEEN: WALDEMAR DUDZINSKI
APPLICANT
AND: AYNSLEY KELLOW
FIRST RESPONDENT
ROY RICKSON
SECOND RESPONDENT
ERROL STOCK
THIRD 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