Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Makucha v Brian Tucker & Associates Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 1089
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – application for summary dismissal – where failure by applicants to comply with orders of the Court – where failure by applicants to put on evidence – where failure causes respondents' prejudice PAUL MAKUCHA & NOTHINTOOHARD PTY LIMITED v BRIAN TUCKER & ASSOCIATES PTY LIMITED, BRIAN TUCKER, NEPEAN ENGINEERING PTY LIMITED, LEAN & HAYWARD PTY LIMITED & PHILIP HAYWARD N 869 OF 2002 BENNETT J 22 SEPTEMBER 2003 SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N869 OF 2002
BETWEEN: PAUL MAKUCHA
FIRST APPLICANT
NOTHINTOOHARD PTY LIMITED (ACN 080 711 897)
SECOND APPLICANT
AND: BRIAN TUCKER & ASSOCIATES PTY LIMITED
FIRST RESPONDENT
BRIAN TUCKER
SECOND RESPONDENT
NEPEAN ENGINEERING PTY LIMITED (ACN 001 375 239)
THIRD RESPONDENT
LEAN & HAYWARD PTY LIMITED (ACN 067 492 755)
FOURTH RESPONDENT
PHILIP HAYWARD
FIFTH RESPONDENT
JUDGE: BENNETT J
DATE OF ORDER: 22 SEPTEMBER 2003
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. Pursuant to Order 10 rule 7 the proceedings be dismissed against all respondents. 2. Applicants to pay the respondents' costs.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N869 OF 2002
BETWEEN: PAUL MAKUCHA
FIRST APPLICANT
NOTHINTOOHARD PTY LIMITED (ACN 080 711 897)
SECOND APPLICANT
AND: BRIAN TUCKER & ASSOCIATES PTY LIMITED
FIRST RESPONDENT
BRIAN TUCKER
SECOND RESPONDENT
NEPEAN ENGINEERING PTY LIMITED (ACN 001 375 239)
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