Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Optical 88 Limited v Optical 88 Pty Limited [2010] FCA 310 Citation: Optical 88 Limited v Optical 88 Pty Limited [2010] FCA 310
Parties: OPTICAL 88 LIMITED v OPTICAL 88 PTY LIMITED (ACN 060 355 437), ANGUS HAU-SUM LAW and LESLEY LOK-YEE LAW; OPTICAL 88 PTY LIMITED and OPTICAL 88 LIMITED
File number: NSD 316 of 2008
Judge: YATES J
Date of judgment: 31 March 2010
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – leave to amend pleadings – leave to withdraw admissions – application made in the course of the hearing for principal relief – factors relevant to the exercise of discretion HELD: Leave refused
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 37M Federal Court Rules, O 22 r 4
Cases cited: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2007] FCA 1390 Celestino v Celestino (unreported, Spender, Miles and Von Doussa JJ, 16 August 1990) Centrestate Exports Pty Ltd v Amarantos Shipping Co Ltd [2005] SASC 158 Drabsch v Switzerland General Insurance Co Ltd (unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wales, 16 October 1996) H Clark (Doncaster) Ltd v Wilkinson [1965] Ch 694 Jeans v Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd (2003) 204 ALR 327 Langdale v Danby (1982) 1 WLR 1123 Queensland v JL Holdings Pty Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 146
Date of hearing: 26 March 2010
Place: Sydney
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