Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
B J McAdam Pty Limited v Jax Tyres Pty Limited (No 5) [2014] FCA 358 Citation: B J McAdam Pty Limited v Jax Tyres Pty Limited (No 5) [2014] FCA 358
Parties: B J MCADAM PTY LIMITED ACN 000 288 639, ANTHONY BRUCE MCADAM AND MARCUS DOMINIC MCADAM AS EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF BRUCE JAMES MCADAM, MERIM HOLDINGS PTY LTD ACN 112 224 807 and SHIRLEY MARLENE MCADAM v JAX TYRES PTY LIMITED ACN 000 955 840, JAX FRANCHISING SYSTEMS PTY LIMITED ACN 060 109 891, JAX TYRES INVESTMENTS PTY LIMITED ACN 112 266 832, IAN FREDERICK HURRELL, VAKOFA PTY LIMITED ACN 003 318 625, CHYLOS PTY LIMITED ACN 001 402 562, VALNOCK PTY LIMITED ACN 010 596 077, JAX TYRES FINANCE PTY LIMITED ACN 112 213 895, JEFFREY DAVID BOARD, VALEDON HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED and GRAYEN HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED
File number: NSD 402 of 2010
Judge: PERRAM J
Date of judgment: 8 April 2014
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application to strike out a portion of the Plaintiffs' Reply – where Reply inconsistent with case pleaded in chief
Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) Rule 16.06
Cases cited: B J McAdam Pty Limited v Jax Tyres Pty Limited (No 2) [2012] FCA 799 cited B J McAdam Pty Limited v Jax Tyres Pty Limited (No 3) [2012] FCA 1438 cited
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