Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Haile-Michael v Konstantinidis [2012] FCA 108 Citation: Haile-Michael v Konstantinidis [2012] FCA 108
Parties: DANIEL HAILE-MICHAEL, ROBERT KOUA, JIBRIL GOD, ZAKARIA GOD, SHUAIB ALI, AHMED MUSSA, MAKI ISSA, HAKIM HASSAN, MAGNUS KABA, ABDUL ABDI and BASHIR HUMED v NICK KONSTANTINIDIS, BRETT PATTIE, SHANE DAVIES, NICK O'BRIEN, PAUL GILMOUR, PETER MEATH, DENIS LINEHAN, CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF VICTORIA POLICE and STATE OF VICTORIA
File number: VID 969 of 2010
Judge: MARSHALL J
Date of judgment: 14 February 2012
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – interlocutory application – discovery – implied undertaking in regard to the use of discovered documents – whether a party should be required to make an express confidentiality undertaking in regard to particular discovered documents
Legislation: Australian Human Rights Act 1986 (Cth) s 46PO(4) Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) s 9(1), s 18C
Cases cited: Hearne v Street (2008) 235 CLR 125 Kimberley Mineral Holdings v McEwan [1980] 1 NSWLR 210 Kirby v Centro Properties Ltd [2009] FCA 695
Date of hearing: 14 February 2012
Place: Melbourne
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 16
Counsel for the Applicants: Mr R Doyle SC with Ms P Knowles
Solicitor for the Applicants: Arnold Bloch Liebler
Counsel for the Eighth Respondent: Mr P Hanks QC with Ms R Orr
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