Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Cassimatis (No 3) [2015] FCA 385 Citation: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Cassimatis (No 3) [2015] FCA 385
Parties: AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION v EMMANUEL GEORGE CASSIMATIS and JULIE GLADYS CASSIMATIS
File number: QUD 574 of 2010
Judge: EDELMAN J
Date of judgment: 4 May 2015
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether there is power to order that questions of legal professional privilege be determined by independent barrister – whether power should be exercised – terms on which power should be exercised in the circumstances of the case
Legislation: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 180, 180(1), 180(2), 912A(1)(a), 945A(1)(b), 945A(1)(c), 920A, 110B, 1041E(1), 1311, 1317S(2) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37M(2)(e) Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 1.32, 5.04(1), 5.04(3), 20.15
Cases cited: Agricultural Land Management Ltd v Jackson (No 2) [2014] WASC 102 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Cassimatis [2011] FCA 796 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Cassimatis (2013) 94 ACSR 623; [2013] FCA 641 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Cassimatis (No 2) (2013) 96 ACSR 272; [2013] FCA 1008 Kinsela v Russell Kinsela Pty Ltd (in liq) (1986) 4 NSWLR 722 March v E & M H Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506
Date of hearing: 1 May 2015
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