Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Serana (WA) Pty Ltd v Mignaccu-Randazzo SM [2014] FCA 120 Citation: Serana (WA) Pty Ltd v Mignaccu-Randazzo SM [2014] FCA 120
Parties: SERANA (WA) PTY LTD v GIUSEPPE MIGNACCU-RANDAZZO SM, ANDREW BAXTER, CRAIG BURLEIGH, CATHERINE CORCORAN and ANDREW WILLIAM PATTERSON
File number(s): WAD 3 of 2014
Judge(s): SIOPIS J
Date of judgment: 20 February 2014
Catchwords: INJUNCTION – interlocutory injunction – the viability of the applicant's business was adversely affected by the extent of quarantine orders made by the respondents – whether the decision to order the goods into quarantine was made by the person who purported to make the decision – whether the decision was made at the behest of another person – whether the quarantine orders were made as an incident of a search of the applicant's premises pursuant to an unlawful search warrant – whether there was sufficient evidence to justify the decision of the decision-maker to place the goods into quarantine – whether the balance of convenience supported the making of an order releasing the goods from quarantine.
Legislation: Quarantine Act 1908 (Cth) s 66AF(2)
Cases cited: Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57
Date of hearing: 7 Februrary 2014
Date of orders: 7 February 2014
Place: Perth
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