Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Dudzinski v Kellow [2002] FCA 1364
WALDEMAR DUDZINSKI v AYNSLEY KELLOWROY RICKSON, ERROL STOCK, BILL HOGARTH, CORDIA CHU, KEES HULSMAN, LYN HOLMAN, COLIN McANDREW, JOHN SCOTT, GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY Q 91 OF 2002 KIEFEL J 31 OCTOBER 2002 BRISBANE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY Q91 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
COLIN McANDREW
EIGHTH RESPONDENT
JOHN SCOTT
NINTH RESPONDENT
GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY
TENTH RESPONDENT
JUDGE: KIEFEL J
DATE OF ORDER: 31 OCTOBER 2002
WHERE MADE: BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application for an adjournment of the appeal to the Full Court be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of this motion. 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 Q91 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
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