Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Panasia Aluminium (China) Limited v Attorney-General of the Commonwealth (No 2) [2013] FCA 1117 Citation: Panasia Aluminium (China) Limited v Attorney-General of the Commonwealth (No 2) [2013] FCA 1117
Parties: PANASIA ALUMINIUM (CHINA) LIMITED and OPAL (MACAO COMMERCIAL OFFSHORE) LIMITED v ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH and CAPRAL LIMITED (INTERVENER)
File number: NSD 1653 of 2011
Parties: TAI SHAN CITY KAM KIU ALUMINIUM EXTRUSION CO LIMITED and KAM KIU ALUMINIUM PRODUCTS SDN BHD and KAM KIU (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED v ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH and TRADE MEASURES REVIEW OFFICER and CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE AUSTRALIAN CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION SERVICE and CAPRAL LIMITED (INTERVENER)
File number: NSD 1869 of 2011
Judge: NICHOLAS J
Date of judgment: 19 September 2013
Catchwords: COSTS – where applicants raised various grounds challenging Ministerial decision – where applicants were unsuccessful in relation to the majority of grounds raised – where applicants succeeded in setting aside Ministerial decision on single ground – appropriate order as to costs. Held: No order as to costs.
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 43
Cases cited: Dodds Family Investments Pty Ltd (formerly Solar Tint Pty Ltd) v Lane Industries Pty Ltd (1993) 26 IPR 261 EMI Songs Australia Pty Ltd v Larrikin Music Publishing Pty Ltd [2011] FCAFC 92 Hughes v Western Australian Cricket Association (Inc) (1986) ATPR 40-748
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