Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Rio Tinto Limited [2020] FCA 1721 File number: NSD 290 of 2018
Judgment of: YATES J
Date of judgment: 27 November 2020
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – applications by second and third defendants for vacation of hearing dates – where trial proposed to be conducted by remote access technology in circumstances of COVID-19 pandemic – where second and third defendants reside in different locations and different time zones
Legislation: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 180(1), 206C, 344(1), 674(2) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37M
Cases cited: ASIC v GetSwift [2020] FCA 504
Division: General Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Corporations and Corporate Insolvency
Number of paragraphs: 62
Date of hearing: 23 November 2020
Counsel for the Plaintiff: Mr J Halley SC and Ms G Westgarth
Solicitor for the Plaintiff: Australian Securities and Investments Commission
Counsel for the First Defendant: Mr D Thomas SC and Ms E Bathurst
Solicitor for the First Defendant: Clayton Utz
Counsel for the Second Defendant: Mr N Hutley SC and Mr J Hutton
Solicitor for the Second Defendant: Jones Day
Counsel for the Third Defendant: Mr J Sheahan QC and Mr D Blazer
Solicitor for the Third Defendant: Allen & Overy
ORDERS NSD 290 of 2018 BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION Plaintiff
AND: RIO TINTO LIMITED ACN 004 458 404 First Defendant
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