Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Oakley, Inc v Franchise China Pty Ltd ACN 080 032 604 [2002] FCA 404 OAKLEY, INC v FRANCHISE CHINA PTY LTD ACN 080 032 604, BARRY JAMES RUMPF, BRUCE ROBERT JOHNSTONE AND ROBERT JOHNSTONE V 1179 OF 2001
DRUMMOND J BRISBANE 15 MARCH 2002
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY V 1179 OF 2001
BETWEEN: OAKLEY, INC
APPLICANT
AND: FRANCHISE CHINA PTY LTD ACN 080 032 604
FIRST RESPONDENT
BARRY JAMES RUMPF
SECOND RESPONDENT
BRUCE ROBERT JOHNSTONE
THIRD RESPONDENT
ROBERT JOHNSTONE
FOURTH RESPONDENT
JUDGE: DRUMMOND J
DATE OF ORDER: 15 MARCH 2002
WHERE MADE: BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The notice of motion filed 11 February 2002 be dismissed.
2. The costs of today 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 V 1179 OF 2001
BETWEEN: OAKLEY, INC
APPLICANT
AND: FRANCHISE CHINA PTY LTD ACN 080 032 604
FIRST RESPONDENT
BARRY JAMES RUMPF
SECOND RESPONDENT
BRUCE ROBERT JOHNSTONE
THIRD RESPONDENT
ROBERT JOHNSTONE
FOURTH RESPONDENT
JUDGE: DRUMMOND J
DATE: 15 MARCH 2002
PLACE: BRISBANE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 The second and third respondents, by notice of motion filed on 11 February 2002, seek orders that they be granted leave to jointly and severally represent the first corporate respondent in these proceedings and secondly, that the second respondent, Mr Rumpf, be removed from these proceedings and that any further action which the applicant may wish to take be the subject of a new and separate proceeding. 2 So far as the application by the second and third respondents to represent the company is concerned, they are its directors and Mr Bruce Johnstone, the third respondent, is its sole shareholder. The principles upon which a company can be permitted to be represented by other than a lawyer are well known. The power of the Federal Court to grant leave to a corporation to be represented by someone other than a lawyer was dealt with in Termi-Mesh Australia Pty Ltd v Josu Manufacturing Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1241, a decision of French J on 8 September 1999. 3 His Honour said, at [13] - [14]:
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