Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Fleet v Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals New South Wales [2008] FCA 1904
ROBERT FLEET v ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS NEW SOUTH WALES
NSD 1686 of 2004
TAMBERLIN J
9 DECEMBER 2008
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1686 of 2004
BETWEEN: ROBERT FLEET
Appellant
AND: ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS NEW SOUTH WALES
Respondent
JUDGE: TAMBERLIN J
DATE OF ORDER: 9 DECEMBER 2008
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The applicant to pay the respondent's costs. 3. The respondent creditor's costs of this appeal be treated as part of the costs as petitioning creditor for the purpose of section 109(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court's website.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1686 of 2004
BETWEEN: ROBERT FLEET
Appellant
AND: ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS NEW SOUTH WALES
Respondent
JUDGE: TAMBERLIN J
DATE: 9 DECEMBER 2008
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Tamberlin J 1 This is a notice of motion filed by Dr Fleet on 13 November 2008, seeking to set aside orders made by Justice Bennett on 2 June 2005. 2 I am satisfied that the applicant in this matter has failed to prosecute the proceeding with due diligence, and has failed to appear before the court this morning, being aware of the matter having been set down for hearing this morning. I note that a fax was sent to the court on 8 December 2008 at 9:14 pm, simply saying that Dr Fleet was not in a position to attend, but no reason whatsoever was given for this. And I note that on a proceeding yesterday Dr Fleet did not appear before the court. 3 I make an order under O 35A r 2(1)(f) of the Federal Court Rules dismissing the notice of motion in relation to orders 1, 2 and 3, as sought in the notice of motion. I note that orders 4 and 5 have been dismissed by Bennett J on a previous occasion. I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Tamberlin.
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