Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Hodges v Waters (No 2) [2013] FCA 877 Citation: Hodges v Waters (No 2) [2013] FCA 877
Parties: CHARLES HODGES & MARK HODGES AS TRUSTEES OF THE CHARLES HODGES SUPERANNUATION FUND v ANDREA JANE WATERS, KPMG, WELLINGTON INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LIMITED, OCTAVIA LIMITED (ADMINISTRATOR APPOINTED), GUY HUTCHINGS, JOHN ARTHUR WHATELEY, JACK SIMON DIAMOND, CRAIG ROBERT WHITE, DEBORAH BEALE, STEVEN KRIS KYLING, STUART ROBERTSON PRICE, MICHAEL GORDON HISCOCK, MICHAEL CHRISTODOULOU KING and PAUL JOSEPH MANKA
File number: NSD 324 of 2009
Judge: PERRAM J
Date of judgment: 29 August 2013
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Representative proceedings – Application for Merck orders – Whether appropriate to make orders in the circumstances
Date of hearing: 7 August 2103
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 9
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr M B J Lee SC, Mr W A D Edwards
Solicitor for the Applicant: Johnson, Winter & Slattery
Counsel for the First and Second Respondents: Mr J R J Lockhart SC, Mr J A Arnott
Solicitor for the First and Second Respondents: Allens
Counsel for the Tenth Respondent: Mr T Marskell
Solicitor for the Tenth Respondent: Wotton + Kearney
Counsel for the Eleventh Respondent: Mr S A Goodman
Solicitor for the Eleventh Respondent: Kelly & Co Lawyers
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