Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Rafferty v Time 2000 West Pty Ltd (No 9) [2011] FCA 1483 Citation: Rafferty v Time 2000 West Pty Ltd (No 9) [2011] FCA 1483
Parties: 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 ACN 128 700 541, EMBLETON LIMITED (A COMPANY INCORPORATED IN HONG KONG), STEPHEN GERARD DONOVAN and MADGWICKS
File number: SAD 122 of 2008
Judge: LANDER J
Date of judgment: 21 December 2011
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – judgments and orders – freezing order – application for variation of orders – whether orders should be varied – whether variation would defeat purpose of orders
Cases cited: Cardile v LED Builders Pty Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 380 cited Dwyer v Ross (1992) 34 FCR 463 considered R & I Bank of Western Australia Ltd v Anchorage Investments Pty Ltd (1993) 10 WAR 59 cited Rafferty v Time 2000 West Pty Limited (No 2) [2008] FCA 1931 cited Rafferty v Time 2000 West Pty Ltd (No 7) [2011] FCA 405 cited
Date of hearing: 7 and 9 December 2011
Place: Adelaide
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 73
Counsel for the Applicants: Mr D Whitington QC with Mr A Rosser
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