Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Olson v Keefe [2017] FCA 101 File number: NSD 1498 of 2016
Judge: BROMWICH J
Date of judgment: 23 February 2017
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for confirmation of service of amended originating application on three foreign respondents pursuant to r 10.43(6) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – requirements of r 10.43(4) – where proceedings involve an Australian respondent and foreign respondents – held: application allowed, service of amended originating application confirmed pursuant to r 10.43(6) – held: service of further documents also confirmed pursuant to r 10.44(4)
Legislation: Australian Consumer Law, ss 18, 31 Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), ss 5(1)(g) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 601CD, 1317AC(2), 1317AC(3) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 22 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 39B(1A)(c) Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), rr 10.42, 10.43(1), 10.43(2), 10.43(4), 10.43(6), 10.44(3), 10.44(4)
Cases cited: Bell v Steele [2011] FCA 1390; (2011) 198 FCR 291 BY Winddown, Inc v Vautin [2016] FCAFC 168 Costa Vraca Pty Ltd v Bell Regal Pty Ltd [2003] FCAFC 305 Fencott v Muller (1983) 152 CLR 570 Ho v Akai Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2006] FCAFC 159; (2006) 24 ACLC 1526 Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally [1999] HCA 27; (1999) 198 CLR 511 Tyne Improvement Commissioners v Armement Anversois S/A (The Brabo) [1949] AC 326 Vautin v BY Winddown, Inc [2016] FCA 632 Vautin v BY Winddown, Inc (No 2) [2016] FCA 1235
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