Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Cheque One Pty Limited v Cheque Exchange (Australia) Pty Ltd (in liq) [2002] FCA 593
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – statement of claim pleads case on behalf of twelve applicants against five respondents – each applicant a party to separate transactions with one or more respondents – separate representations made to each applicant – whether applicants can be joined in the one proceeding pursuant to Federal Court Rules O 6 r 2.
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 440D, 471B Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), ss 51A, 52, 53 Federal Court Rules, O 6 r 2 Payne v Young (1981) 145 CLR 609, applied. Bishop v Bridgelands Securities Ltd [1990] ATPR 41-060, distinguished. CHEQUE ONE PTY LIMITED v CHEQUE EXCHANGE (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD (in liq) N 1345 of 2000 SACKVILLE J SYDNEY 10 MAY 2002
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 1345 OF 2000
BETWEEN: CHEQUE ONE PTY LIMITED
T/AS ChequEXchange Parramatta
THIRD APPLICANT
CORPORAL INVESTMENTS PTY LIMITED
T/AS ChequEXchange Rockdale
FOURTH APPLICANT
CORPORAL INVESTMENTS PTY LIMITED
T/AS ChequEXchange Mt Druitt
FIFTH APPLICANT
WAREFIELD INVESTMENTS PTY LIMITED
T/AS ChequEXchange Fairfield
SIXTH APPLICANT
THIRD DIMENSION PHOTO PTY LIMITED
T/AS ChequEXchange West Ryde
SEVENTH APPLICANT
FINANCE GROUP PTY LIMITED
T/AS ChequEXchange Burwood
TENTH APPLICANT
ASSUNDA PTY LIMITED
T/AS ChequEXchange Gosford
ELEVENTH APPLICANT
JF & BA JOHNSON PARTNERSHIP
T/AS ChequEXchange Canberra City
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