Liaw v Loh [2006] FCA 324

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Liaw v Loh [2006] FCA 324

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – no reasonable cause of action – summary judgment – applicants did not invest their own monies ‑ whether applicants suffered loss – whether applicants arguably were trustees

Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 52 Corporations Law s 945

Federal Court Rules O 20 r 2(1)

Salim v Loh [2005] FCA 372 cited Webster v Lampard (1993) 177 CLR 598 applied Janssen‑Gilag Pty Limited v Pfizer Pty Limited (1992) 37 FCR 526 cited

Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th edn, vol 48 CHARLES LIAW and HERLINA SALIM v SIMON THUANG CHYE LOH, ROBERT ASHMAN, STEPHEN WILLIAM MARSHALL, NEIL HENRY POLLARD and OSTRICH MEAT & MARKETING COMPANY (AUSTRALIA) LTD (ACN 067 005 190) (IN LIQ) WAD 10 OF 2004 SIOPIS J 20 MARCH 2006 PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY WAD 10 OF 2004

BETWEEN: CHARLES LIAW and HERLINA SALIM

APPLICANTS

AND: SIMON THUANG CHYE LOH

FIRST RESPONDENT

ROBERT ASHMAN

SECOND RESPONDENT

STEPHEN WILLIAM MARSHALL

THIRD RESPONDENT

NEIL HENRY POLLARD

FOURTH RESPONDENT

OSTRICH MEAT & MARKETING COMPANY (AUSTRALIA) LTD (ACN 067 005 190) (IN LIQ)

FIFTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE: SIOPIS J

DATE OF ORDER: 20 MARCH 2006

WHERE MADE: PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1 The third respondent's notice of motion filed 7 January 2006 is dismissed. 2 The third respondent is to pay the applicants' costs of the motion in any event. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY WAD 10 OF 2004