Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Media Ocean Limited v Optus Mobile Pty Limited (No 6) [2009] FCA 1319
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – notice of motion applying to amend application and statement of claim Held: application to amend allowed
Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University(2009) 258 ALR 14; [2009] HCA 27 Queensland v J L Holdings Pty Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 146; [1997] HCA 1 Butterworths. Practice & Procedure: High Court and Federal Court of Australia. Sydney (2000), loose-leaf service (last updated October 2009 Service 198) at [40,455.5]
MEDIA OCEAN LIMITED and MEDIATEL SERVICES PTY LIMITED (ACN 090 256 796) v OPTUS MOBILE PTY LIMITED (ACN 054 365 696)
NSD 242 of 2009
JAGOT J
5 NOVEMBER 2009
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
General Division NSD 242 of 2009
BETWEEN: MEDIA OCEAN LIMITED
First Applicant
MEDIATEL AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED (ACN 106 996 736)
Second Applicant
AND: OPTUS MOBILE PTY LIMITED (ACN 054 365 696)
Respondent
FIRST Cross-Claim BETWEEN: OPTUS MOBILE PTY LIMITED (ACN 054 363 969)
First Cross-Claimant
OPTUS NETWORKS PTY LIMITED (ACN 008 570 330)
Second Cross-Claimant
AND: VODAFONE NETWORK PTY LIMITED (ACN 081 918 461)
Cross-Respondent
Second Cross-Claim BETWEEN: VODAFONE NETWORK PTY LIMITED (ACN 081 918 461)
Cross-Claimant
AND: OPTUS MOBILE PTY LIMITED (ACN 054 363 969)
First Cross-Respondent
OPTUS NETWORKS PTY LIMITED (ACN 008 570 330)
Second Cross-Respondent
JUDGE: JAGOT J
DATE OF ORDER: 5 NOVEMBER 2009
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