Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
RPR Maintenance Pty Ltd v Marmax Investments Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 1311 Citation: RPR Maintenance Pty Ltd v Marmax Investments Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 1311
Parties: RPR MAINTENANCE PTY LTD (ACN 003 610 231) v MARMAX INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 001 147 511) and SPANLINE WEATHERSTRONG BUILDING SYSTEMS PTY LTD (ACN 002 968 087)
File number: NSD 804 of 2012
Judge: YATES J
Date of judgment: 23 November 2012
Date of hearing: Determined on the papers
Date of last submissions: 20 July 2012
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 12
Counsel for the Applicant: Ms K Rees
Solicitor for the Applicant: Newhouse & Arnold Solicitors
Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr TJ Rickard
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Martin & Holmes Legal
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 804 of 2012
BETWEEN: RPR MAINTENANCE PTY LTD (ACN 003 610 231)
Applicant
AND: MARMAX INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 001 147 511)
First Respondent
SPANLINE WEATHERSTRONG BUILDING SYSTEMS PTY LTD (ACN 002 968 087)
Second Respondent
JUDGE: YATES J DATE OF ORDER: 23 NOVEMBER 2012 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The first respondent's costs of the interlocutory application filed on 8 June 2012 be its costs in the cause. Note: Settlement and 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 804 of 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