Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Neobev Pty Ltd v Bacchus Distillery Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2013] FCA 1188 Citation: Neobev Pty Ltd v Bacchus Distillery Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2013] FCA 1188
Parties: NEOBEV PTY LTD (ACN 165 795 746) v BACCHUS DISTILLERY PTY LTD (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) (ACN 065 961 711); MAX SCOTT CONSULTING PTY LTD and MAX SCOTT
File number: SAD 291 of 2013
Judge: BESANKO J
Date of judgment: 12 November 2013
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application by respondent for the hearing of a separate question pursuant to Rule 30.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – where respondent is in administration – where administrators raise commercial considerations – where the trial should be heard expeditiously.
Legislation: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 439B(2), 556(1), Part 5.3A
Date of hearing: 11 November 2013
Place: Adelaide
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 15
Counsel for the Applicant/Cross Respondents: Mr P Crutchfield SC with Mr L Merrick
Solicitor for the Applicant/Cross Respondents: Piper Alderman
Counsel for the Respondent/Cross Claimant: Mr M Livesey QC
Solicitor for the Respondent/Cross Claimant: DMAW Lawyers as agent for Mills Oakley Lawyers
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION SAD 291 of 2013
BETWEEN: NEOBEV PTY LTD (ACN 165 795 746)
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