Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Lakshmanan v Janarthanan (No 1) [2006] FCA 831 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – submission of no case to answer – election - whether moving party must elect to call no evidence Held - application refused
Federal Court Rules O 35 r 3 Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Amcor Printing Papers Group (2002) 169 ALR 344 distinguished ARUNACHLAM LAKSHMANAN & ANOR v PERUMAL JANARTHANAN & ORS NSD 1689 OF 2004 RARES J 8 MARCH 2006 SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1689 OF 2004
BETWEEN: ARUNACHLAM LAKSHMANAN
FIRST APPLICANT
MONTBLUE PTY LTD (ACN 087 324 507)
SECOND APPLICANT
AND: PERUMAL JANARTHANAN
FIRST RESPONDENT
JANA HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 002 252 066)
SECOND RESPONDENT
ROBERT PETER ROSS-EDWARDS
THIRD RESPONDENT
NICHOLAS ANNABEL PTY LTD (ACN 063 012 340)
FOURTH RESPONDENT
CASSONE HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 002 821 623)
FIFTH RESPONDENT
STANLEY ROBERT SHAW
SIXTH RESPONDENT
ELKVILLE HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 002 683 481)
SEVENTH RESPONDENT
JUDGE: RARES J
DATE OF ORDER: 8 MARCH 2006
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT: 1 Dismisses the application of the fifth respondent that it be permitted to make a submission of no case to answer, without first having to elect not to call evidence.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1689 OF 2004
BETWEEN: ARUNACHLAM LAKSHMANAN & ANOR
FIRST APPLICANT
MONTBLUE PTY LTD (ACN 087 324 507)
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