Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Randjelovic v Threlfall [2012] FCA 1331 Citation: Randjelovic v Threlfall [2012] FCA 1331
Parties: TEODORA RANDJELOVIC and VESNA KOSTIC v PHILLIP THRELFALL
File number: VID 661 of 2012
Judges: DODDS-STREETON J
Date of judgment: 27 November 2012
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Breach of contract – claims under ss 107 and 108 of Fair Trading Act 1999 (Vic) and s 3 of the Wrongs (Public Contracts) Act 1981 (Vic) – whether Federal Court had jurisdiction – whether applicants should pay costs on indemnity basis
Legislation: Civil Dispute Resolution Act 2011 (Cth), s 6(1) Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), rr 8.02, 8.05 Fair Trading Act 1999 (Vic), ss 3, 107, 108, 109, 111, 112, 160E, 160F Wrongs (Public Contracts) Act 1981 (Vic), ss 2, 3
Cases cited: Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225
Date of hearing: 9 November 2012
Date of publication of reasons: 27 November 2012
Date of last submissions: 9 November 2012
Place: Melbourne
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 36
Counsel for the Applicants: The first applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr T McLean
Solicitor for the Respondent: John Curtain & Associates
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION VID 661 of 2012
BETWEEN: TEODORA RANDJELOVIC
First Applicant
VESNA KOSTIC
Second Applicant
AND: PHILLIP THRELFALL
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