Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Raytheon Company v Lockheed Martin Corporation (No 1) [2013] FCA 587 Citation: Raytheon Company v Lockheed Martin Corporation (No 1) [2013] FCA 587
Parties: RAYTHEON COMPANY v LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION
File number: NSD 1941 of 2012
Judge: PERRAM J
Date of judgment: 13 June 2013
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Discovery – Application for discovery prior to the serving of evidence
Cases cited: Foley v Gunns Ltd [2012] FCA 595 cited
Date of hearing: 13 June 2013
Date of publication of reasons: 18 June 2013
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 2
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr R Webb
Solicitor for the Applicant: Thomsons Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms S Marks SC, Ms F Marks
Solicitor for the Respondent: Logie-Smith Lanyon
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 1941 of 2012
BETWEEN: RAYTHEON COMPANY
Applicant
AND: LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION
Respondent
JUDGE: PERRAM J DATE OF ORDER: 13 JUNE 2013 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application be dismissed. 2. The application may be renewed after the finalisation of testamentary evidence. 3. Costs be reserved. 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 1941 of 2012
BETWEEN: RAYTHEON COMPANY
Applicant
AND: LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION
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