Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Gill v Fairfax Media Limited (No 1) [2012] FCA 964 Citation: Gill v Fairfax Media Limited (No 1) [2012] FCA 964
Parties: MICHAEL GILL v FAIRFAX MEDIA LIMITED
File number: NSD 2254 of 2011
Judge: PERRAM J
Date of judgment: 4 September 2012
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Discovery – application for – consideration of proposed categories of discovery
Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 r 20.31
Cases cited: Hearne v Street (2008) 235 CLR 125 cited Mobil Oil Australia Ltd v Guina Developments Pty Ltd [1996] 2 VR 34 distinguished
Date of hearing: 30 August 2012
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 28
Counsel for the Applicant: C Ronalds SC
Solicitor for the Applicant: People + Culture Strategies
Counsel for the Respondent: RM Foreman
Solicitor for the Respondent: Freehills
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 2254 of 2011
BETWEEN: MICHAEL GILL
Applicant
AND: FAIRFAX MEDIA LIMITED
Respondent
JUDGE: PERRAM J DATE OF ORDER: 4 SEPTEMBER 2012 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The parties bring in short minutes of order to give effect to these reasons by 10 September 2012. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 2254 of 2011
BETWEEN: MICHAEL GILL
Applicant
AND: FAIRFAX MEDIA LIMITED
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