Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Armit v Jeminex Limited (No 4) [2013] FCA 889 Citation: Armit v Jeminex Limited (No 4) [2013] FCA 889
Parties: MADONNA ANNE ARMIT v JEMINEX LIMITED ACN 113 973 087
File number: NSD 1744 of 2010
Judge: ROBERTSON J
Date of judgment: 29 August 2013
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – applicant absent when proceeding called on for trial – whether application should be dismissed
Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 30.21(1)(a)
Cases cited: Forster v Harvey (2006) NSWSC 1112
Date of hearing: 29 August 2013
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 18
Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant did not appear
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr F Corsaro SC with Ms N Bearup
Solicitor for the Respondent: Sachs Gerace Lawyers
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 1744 of 2010
BETWEEN: MADONNA ANNE ARMIT
Applicant
AND: JEMINEX LIMITED ACN 113 973 087
Respondent
JUDGE: ROBERTSON J DATE OF ORDER: 29 AUGUST 2013 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The originating application filed on 14 December 2010 and amended on 3 April 2013 is dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings, including any reserved costs. 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 1744 of 2010
BETWEEN: MADONNA ANNE ARMIT
Applicant
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