Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Wepar Nominees Pty Ltd v Schofield [2013] FCA 920 Citation: Wepar Nominees Pty Ltd v Schofield [2013] FCA 920
Parties: WEPAR NOMINEES PTY LTD ACN 008 108 709 and IAN MCLEOD SMITH v DONALD WAYNE SCHOFIELD, ROGER CLARKE and JAYNE ELIZABETH STEELE
File number: SAD 234 of 2012
Judge: BESANKO J
Date of judgment: 13 September 2013
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application by second respondent to transfer the proceeding pursuant to s 48 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and r 2.02 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) from the South Australian District Registry to the Queensland District Registry – where first and third respondents support application – where applicants oppose application – whether the applicants' choice of place is capricious – whether there is sound reason to direct that the proceeding be continued elsewhere – consideration of the interests of all the parties, the ends of justice in the determination of the issues between them and the most efficient administration of the Court. Held: The second respondent's application dated 29 October 2012 be dismissed.
Legislation: Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) s12DA(1) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 710, 728, 729, 731, 733, 1041H Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) Part IVA, s 48(1) Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 2.02, 5.04(3), Schedule 1 Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth) O 10, r 1(2)(f), O 1, r 4, O 30, r 6
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