Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
ACP Machinery Australia Pty Ltd v Aerospace Technologies of Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 949 Citation: ACP Machinery Australia Pty Ltd v Aerospace Technologies of Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 949
Parties: ACP MACHINERY AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 066 485 925) v AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGIES OF AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 008 622 008) and BOEING AEROSTRUCTURES AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 103 165 466)
File number: VID 765 of 2010
Judge: DODDS-STREETON J
Date of judgment: 20 August 2012
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - application to amend statement of claim shortly prior to trial – application for security for costs already incurred – relevance of delay EVIDENCE - whether reply affidavit in fact expert evidence-in-chief – whether reliance on such evidence precluded or required adjournment of trial
Legislation: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 1335 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 56 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), r 19.01
Cases cited: Baygol Pty Ltd v Huntsman Chemical Co Australia Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1248 considered Consolidated Credit Network v Illawarra Retirement Trust [2005] NSWSC 1004 cited Dura (Australia) Constructions Pty Ltd v Hue Boutique Living Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] VSC 518 cited Strategic Financial and Project Services Pty Ltd v Bank of China [2012] FCA 445 considered Sylverton Pty Ltd v Minter Ellison [2011] FCA 1072 considered
Date of hearing: 20 August 2012
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