Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Pampered Paws Connection Pty Ltd (ACN 116 460 621) (on its own behalf and in a representative capacity) v Pets Paradise Franchising (QLD) Pty Ltd (ACN 054 406 272) (No 4) [2009] FCA 817
PAMPERED PAWS CONNECTION PTY LTD (ACN 116 460 621) (ON ITS OWN BEHALF AND IN A REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY) v PETS PARADISE FRANCHISING (QLD) PTY LTD (ACN 054 406 272), PETS PARADISE FRANCHISING (SA) PTY LTD (ACN 069 620 391), PETS PARADISE FRANCHISING (NSW) PTY LTD (ACN 006 919 222), GLOBAL PET PRODUCTS PTY LTD (ACN 005 666 599), PETS PARADISE (FRANCHISING) PTY LTD (ACN 006 626 455), PETS PARADISE PTY LTD (ACN 005 558 378), PARADISE RETAIL HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 105 253 441) and GARY DIAMOND
SAD 142 of 2008
MANSFIELD J
4 AUGUST 2009
ADELAIDE IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION SAD 142 of 2008
BETWEEN: PAMPERED PAWS CONNECTION PTY LTD (ACN 116 460 621) (ON ITS OWN BEHALF AND IN A REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY)
Applicant
AND: PETS PARADISE FRANCHISING (QLD) PTY LTD (ACN 054 406 272)
First Respondent
PETS PARADISE FRANCHISING (SA) PTY LTD (ACN 069 620 391)
Second Respondent
PETS PARADISE FRANCHISING (NSW) PTY LTD (ACN 006 919 222)
Third Respondent
GLOBAL PET PRODUCTS PTY LTD (ACN 005 666 599)
Fourth Respondent
PETS PARADISE (FRANCHISING) PTY LTD (ACN 006 626 455)
Fifth Respondent
PETS PARADISE PTY LTD (ACN 005 558 378)
Sixth Respondent
PARADISE RETAIL HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 105 253 441)
Seventh Respondent
GARY DIAMOND
Eighth Respondent
JUDGE: MANSFIELD J
DATE: 4 AUGUST 2009
PLACE: ADELAIDE
REASONS FOR DECISION 1 On 9 July 2009 I adjourned a motion of the respondents, which had been listed for hearing on that day, for an order that the proceedings no longer continue as a representative proceeding. I also made orders on an oral application of the applicant for a further extension of time to file and serve a further amended statement of claim to 23 July 2009. I ordered that, if the further amended statement of claim was not filed within that time, the application be struck out. I ordered that the costs of that oral application be the respondents' costs in any event. The motion has been relisted for hearing on 4 August 2009. 2 These are my written reasons for making that ruling.
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