Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Sentinel Orange Homemaker Pty Ltd v Bailey, in the matter of Davis Investment Group Holdings Pty Ltd (in liq) [2022] FCA 85 File number(s): NSD 954 of 2021
Judgment of: STEWART J
Date of judgment: 4 February 2022
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether release from Hearne v Street implied undertaking is required where plaintiff seeks to use document for resolution of the dispute for which the document was filed – if required, whether release should be granted – whether the implied undertaking applies to evidence already adduced – whether the implied undertaking applies to pleadings – whether the implied undertaking applies to the party's own evidence
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 37M, 37N
Cases cited: Hazell-Wright v 32 Domain Pty Ltd [2020] VSCA 129 Hearne v Street [2008] HCA 36; 235 CLR 125 LCM Operations Pty Ltd (in its capacity as eligible applicant of 316 Group Pty Ltd (in liq) [2021] FCA 324 Royal Express Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (Administrator Appointed) v Huang, in the matter of Royal Express Pty Ltd (No 5) [2021] FCA 1302 Treasury Wine Estates Ltd v Maurice Blackburn Pty Ltd [2020] FCAFC 226; 282 FCR 95
Division: General Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Corporations and Corporate Insolvency
Number of paragraphs: 20
Date of hearing: 4 February 2022
Counsel for the Plaintiff L Gor
Solicitor for the Plaintiff Russells Law
Counsel for the Defendant R Size
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