Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Mentyn v Westpac Banking Corporation [2003] FCA 1521 JEAN-PAUL MENTYN v WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION & ANOR T18 of 2003 HEEREY J 11 DECEMBER 2003 HOBART
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
TASMANIA DISTRICT REGISTRY T18 OF 2003
BETWEEN: JEAN-PAUL MENTYN
APPLICANT
AND: WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION
FIRST RESPONDENT
TASMANIAN PERPETUAL TRUSTEES LTD
SECOND RESPONDENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
THIRD RESPONDENT
THE STATE OF TASMANIA
FOURTH RESPONDENT
A D PEARCE & CO
FIFTH RESPONDENT
JEFFREY JAMES FALCONE & VIVIEN MAY FALCONE
SIXTH RESPONDENT
ARCHER BUSHBY
SEVENTH RESPONDENT
RAE & PARTNERS
EIGHTH RESPONDENT
SHIELDS HERITAGE
NINTH RESPONDENT
GUNSON WILLIAMS
TENTH RESPONDENT
JACKSON & TREMAYNE
ELEVENTH RESPONDENT
THE LAW SOCIETY OF TASMANIA
TWELFTH RESPONDENT
JUDGE: HEEREY J
DATE OF ORDER: 11 DECEMBER 2003
WHERE MADE: HOBART
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The applicant's notice of motion dated 9 December 2003 is dismissed. 2. The document on the Court file, identified as document number 22, be removed from the file. 3. The documents produced under subpoena by the Practice Manager of the Derwent Valley Medical Centre be returned immediately to the Medical Centre. 4. The application is dismissed. 5. The applicant pay the costs of all respondents on an indemnity basis. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
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