Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Mijac Investments Pty Ltd v Graham [2014] FCA 366 Citation: Mijac Investments Pty Ltd v Graham [2014] FCA 366
Parties: MIJAC INVESTMENTS PTY LTD v WILLIAM GRAHAM, COSMICK PTY LTD (ACN 065 356 149) and MELBOURNE GRAVITY PTY LTD (ACN 490 584 339)
File number: VID 77 of 2014
Judge: JESSUP J
Date of judgment: 10 April 2014
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for orders about procedures under r 1.21 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – r 1.21 is not designed to provide an unsuccessful party guidance on how to reopen their case – r 1.21 is not to be used as a means of seeking legal advice from the court where that advice could be provided by a competent legal practitioner – Application dismissed
Legislation: Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth) s 25(2B) Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 4.01, 4.05, 11.02, 17.01
Cases cited: Edwards Hot Water Systems (A Firm) v S W Hart & Co Pty Ltd (1985) 9 FCR 537 Mijac Investments Pty Ltd v Graham (No 2) [2009] FCA 773 Mijac Investments Pty Ltd v Graham [2010] FCA 87 Mijac Investments Pty Ltd v Graham [2010] FCA 895 Mijac Investments Pty Ltd v Graham [2010] FCA 896 Mijac Investments Pty Ltd v Graham [2013] FCA 296
Date of hearing: Heard on the papers
Place: Melbourne
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 18
Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant did not file any submissions
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION VID 77 of 2014
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