Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Meaden v Bell Potter Securities Limited (No 2) [2012] FCA 418 Citation: Meaden v Bell Potter Securities Limited (No 2) [2012] FCA 418
Parties: JILLIAN ANNETTA MEADEN v BELL POTTER SECURITIES LIMITED (ACN 006 390 772)
File number: NSD 1310 of 2010
Judge: EDMONDS J
Date of judgment: 27 April 2012
Catchwords: PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – whether proceeding should continue under Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) as a representative proceeding – whether representative proceeding would provide efficient and effective means of dealing with the claims of all group members – whether it is otherwise inappropriate that the claims be pursued by means of a representative proceeding. Held: Proceeding should not continue under Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) as a representative proceeding.
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 33C, 33N, 33ZB, 33H, 33R Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act 2001 (Cth) s 12ED(1) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) Pt 7.7
Cases cited: Multiplex Funds Management Ltd v P Dawson Nominees Pty Ltd (2007) 164 FCR 275 referred to Bright v Femcare Ltd (2002) 195 ALR 574 referred to Williams v FAI Home Security Pty Limited (No. 2) [2000] FCA 726 distinguished TMAC Pty Ltd trading as Northstar Property Services v Thomas Ford Trading Pty Ltd trading as Fresh Telecoms [2010] FCA 445 cited
Date of hearing: 24 February 2012
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