Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Boase v Sullivan Commercial Pty Ltd trading as McGees Property (No 4) [2013] FCA 195 Citation: Boase v Sullivan Commercial Pty Ltd trading as McGees Property (No 4) [2013] FCA 195
Parties: TIMOTHY BOASE & JENNY LEE BOASE ATF THE BOASE FAMILY TRUST WITH TRUSTEE TIMOTHY BOASE AS THE REPRESENTATIVE PARTY, SUSAN ELIZABETH BOASE, PAUL ANTHONY BOASE, CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM BOASE, SAMUEL BOASE, ASHLEY JOHN WALLIN, ANTHONY DAVID WALKER & OLIVIA JAYE WALKER, LUCAS HOLT, CHRISTINE FORLONGE & GRAHAM FORLONGE, JANE ELIZABETH GLASS, ROGER LYNTON KERLEY & JENNIFER ANNE ALFORD, SAIL INVESTMENTS ATF THE STOCKS FAMILY TRUST, STEVEN NIKOLA PECNIK & JOSEPHINE MELANIE PECNIK, IB LEWIS CAMERON, SUSAN ROOSENBOOM, JULIE RETA MINTER, RON REDDINGIUS & JULIE ANNE REDDINGIUS, DAVID H J PAYNE & MELISSA A PAYNE, GARRY CHARLES HAWKES ATF THE HAWKES FAMILY TRUST, GOLFBLITZ PTY LTD ATF STEPHEN CLARKE TRADING TRUST, BRETT DOUGLAS STUBBS-MILLS, CHRISTOPHER MARSHALL ALLAN & MICHELE MARGARET ALLAN ATF THE ALLAN SUPER FUND, RAYMOND JOHN GIBLETT & JANET DIANNE GIBLETT, HOVEA INVESTMENTS PTY LTD ATF THE MOCK FAMILY TRUST, PHILLIPS PROPERTY ATF THE PHILLIPS FAMILY TRUST v SULLIVAN COMMERCIAL PTY LTD T/A MCGEES PROPERTY and WAYNE SRHOY
File number: WAD 240 of 2010
Judge: MCKERRACHER J
Date of judgment: 7 March 2013
Catchwords: CONTEMPT – interlocutory application by self-represented applicant under r 42.16 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – applicant sought order directing the Registrar to commence contempt proceedings against three practitioners – whether appropriate for the trial judge to hear the referral application – whether sufficient admissible evidence filed in support of the application to warrant referral – supporting affidavit contained hearsay and referred to conduct in the context of 'without prejudice' mediation – whether substantial delays in compliance with various Court orders amounted to contumacious conduct – various allegations including that practitioners improperly interfered with expert evidence COSTS – three legal practitioners successfully opposed an interlocutory application by applicant seeking an order directing the Registrar to commence contempt proceedings –– Chorley exception – whether legal practitioners entitled to costs of acting for themselves – usual rule of costs following the event distinguished – extensive delays in compliance with Court orders – costs incurred in opposing the motion were minimal
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