Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Dudzinski v Kellow [2003] FCA 798 WALDEMAR DUDZINSKI v AYNSLEY KELLOW, ROY RICKSON, ERROL STOCK, BILL HOGARTH, CORDIA CHU, KEES HULSMAN, LYN HOLMAN, COLIN McANDREW, JOHN SCOTT AND GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY Q 31 OF 2003 KIEFEL J BRISBANE 25 JULY 2003
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY Q 31 OF 2003
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: WALDEMAR DUDZINSKI
APPELLANT
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: 25 JULY 2003
WHERE MADE: BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The applications filed on 21 July 2003 be dismissed with costs. 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 31 OF 2003
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: WALDEMAR DUDZINSKI
APPELLANT
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
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