Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Rafferty v Time 2000 West Pty Limited (No 3) [2009] FCA 727
COSTS – application by applicants that second to fifth respondents pay costs forthwith – unsuccessful application by second to fifth respondents for transfer of proceeding to other Registry of Court – successful application by applicants for freezing orders against second to fifth respondents – unsuccessful application by second to fifth respondents for leave to appeal from freezing orders – successful application by second to fifth respondents for vacation of trial date with order made that they pay applicants' costs thrown away as result of vacation Held: order that costs be payable forthwith refused – application for adjournment not delaying tactic or result of reprehensible conduct and delay not of substantial order. LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – costs – lien – application by cross-claimants that cross-respondent produce papers it holds – whether client or solicitor who terminated retainer – general rule where solicitor terminates retainer that solicitor required to produce client's papers upon undertaking that they will be returned to solicitor upon completion of proceeding – exception to general rule – scope of exception Held: order for production made – general rule where solicitor terminates retainer should be applied. Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 51AD Federal Court Rules O 25A, O 62 r 3 Trade Practices (Industry Codes — Franchising) Regulations 1998 (Cth) A v B [1984] 1 All ER 265 distinguished Airservices Australia v Jeppesen Sanderson Inc [2006] FCA 906 referred to Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Mining Projects Group Ltd (No 3) [2008] FCA 952 referred to Gamlen Chemical Co (UK) Ltd v Rochem Ltd [1980] 1 WLR 614 followed Heslop v Metcalfe (1837) 3 My & Cr 183; 40 ER 894 discussed In the Matter of an Application by Weedman (unreported, Drummond J, 17 December 1996) referred to IO Group Inc v Prestige Club Australasia Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1147 referred to Ismail v Richards Butler (a firm) [1996] QB 711 distinguished Jianshe Southern Pty Ltd v Cooktown Pty Ltd (No 2) [2007] FCA 903 referred to McKellar v Container Terminal Management Services Ltd [1999] FCA 1639 referred to Rafferty v Time 2000 West Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1925 referred to Rafferty v Time 2000 West Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] FCA 1931referred to Robins v Goldingham (1872) 13 LR Eq 440 discussed Spotwire Pty Ltd v Visa International Service Association (No 2) [2004] FCA 571 referred to Starke v Dennett [2008] 2 Qd R 72 referred to Time 2000 Systems (Australia) Pty Ltd ACN 127 853 614 v Rafferty [2009] FCA 216 referred to Vasyli v AOL International Pty Ltd (unreported, Lehane J, 2 September 1996) referred to PATRICK CAMPBELL RAFFERTY, SANTORA HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED ACN 128 467 550 and KARAVILLE HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED ACN 009 439 178 v TIME 2000 WEST PTY LIMITED ACN 127 893 270, TIME 2000 SYSTEMS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED ACN 127 853 614, TIME 2000 OPERATIONS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED, EMBLETON LIMITED (A COMPANY INCORPORATED IN HONG KONG), STEPHEN GERARD DONOVAN and MADGWICKS (A FIRM) SAD 122 of 2008
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