Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Energy City Qatar Holding Company v Hub Street Equipment Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1033 File number: NSD 94 of 2020
Judge: JAGOT J
Date of judgment: 16 July 2020
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application by the applicant that the respondent provide security for the applicant's costs – whether the position of the respondent is purely defensive – where there is no cross-claim nor any order sought by the respondent against the applicant – application dismissed
Legislation: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 1335 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 23, 56, 56(1) International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) ss 8, 8(1), 8(3), 8(5), 8(7)
Cases cited: Classic Ceramic Importers Pty Ltd v Ceramica Antiga SA (1994) 13 ACSR 263 IMC Aviation Solutions Proprietary Limited v Altain Khuder LLC [2011] VSCA 246; 38 VR 303 Interwest Ltd v Tricontinental Corporation Ltd (1991) 9 ACLC 1218 Jackson v Sterling Industries Ltd [1987] 162 CLR 612 Nine Films and& Television Proprietary Limited v Ninox Television Ltd [2005] FCA 735; (2005) 146 FCR 144 Toolgen Incorporated v Fisher [2019] FCA 2158 Visco v Minter [1969] 2 All ER 714
Date of hearing: 16 July 2020
Registry: New South Wales
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: International Commercial Arbitration
Category: Catchwords
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