Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Thunder Studios Inc (California) v Kazal (No 5) [2017] FCA 1572 File number: NSD 850 of 2014
Judge: RARES J
Date of judgment: 8 December 2017
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – r 1.39 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 – application by first respondent for extension of time to comply with self-executing order after the date for compliance had passed – where first respondent ordered to file and serve verified answers to interrogatories within certain time in default of which defence would be struck out – where non-compliance – whether exercise of Court's discretion under r 1.39 to extend the time would relieve against injustice – whether first respondent gave adequate explanation as to why order was not complied with – where first respondent made no sufficient arrangements to comply with order in time and gave no explanation for failure – where first respondent had defaulted on two earlier occasions in complying with orders to file and serve verified answers – whether first respondent fulfilled obligations under ss 37M and 37N of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) Pt VB, ss 37M, 37N, 45 Federal Court Rules 2011 r 1.39
Cases cited: Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175 Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd v Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Limited (2013) 250 CLR 303 FAI General Insurance Company Limited v Southern Cross Exploration NL (1988) 165 CLR 268 Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd (2011) 243 CLR 361 Lodestar Anstalt v Campari Australia LLC (No 2) [2016] FCAFC 118 Palmer v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1986) 5 NSWLR 727 Sandbach v Commissioner of Taxation [2017] FCA 526 STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd v Bowen Basin Coal Group Pty Ltd (2010) 188 FCR 528 Sydney Equine Coaches Pty Ltd v Gorst [2017] FCAFC 34 Tamaya Resources Ltd (in liq) v Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (a firm) (2016) 332 ALR 199 Thunder Studios Inc (California) v Kazal (No 3) [2017] FCA 1170 Thunder Studios Inc (California) v Kazal (No 4) [2017] FCA 1571
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