Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Quach v RU (No 2) [2020] FCA 957 File number: ACD 59 of 2019
Judge: RARES J
Date of judgment: 29 May 2020
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where application raised no justiciable controversy and was abuse of process – where applicant sought declaration that non-party had not complied with subpoena after final orders made dismissing all applicant's claims in proceeding in another court– where res judicata in final orders of other court and issue estoppel by its finding that service of subpoena ineffective.
Legislation: Constitution, Chapter III Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth), s 3, 30, 31, 32 Service and Execution of Process Regulations 1993 (Cth), reg 4 Health Care Complaints Act 1993 (NSW), s 99 Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 6602
Cases cited: ARJ17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) 250 FCR 446 Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464 Commissioner for Railways v Small (1938) 38 SR(NSW) 564 Mayor &c of London v Cox (1867) LR 2 HL 239 Quach v RU (No 1) [2017] ACTSC 233 Quach v RU (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 234 Quach v RU (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 258 Quach v RU [2019] FCA 2041 Re J.R.L.; Ex parte C.J.L. (1986) 161 CLR 342 Re Macks; Ex parte Saint (2000) 204 CLR 158 Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 373
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