Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Polis v Zombor (No 5) [2022] FCA 122 File number: VID 217 of 2018
Judgment of: O'BRYAN J
Date of judgment: 18 February 2022
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application under r 39.05 of Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) to set aside orders for preliminary discovery made under r 7.23 – orders for preliminary discovery made in absence of prospective respondent – principles relevant to exercise of discretion under r 39.05(1)(a) and (c) – whether prospective applicant had basis for reasonable belief of right to obtain relief within meaning of r 7.23(1)(a) – orders for preliminary discovery set aside – originating application dismissed – no orders for costs
Legislation: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) Pt X Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Sch 2 (Australian Consumer Law) ss 18, 20, 236 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 37M, 43 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 7.23, 39.05 Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) ss 5, 27
Cases cited: 3D Funtimes Ltd v Intellec Development Group Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] FCA 407 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v ActiveSuper Pty Ltd (No 4) [2013] FCA 318 BHP Coal Pty Ltd v O & K Orenstein & Koppel AG [2008] QSC 141 Campaign Master (UK) Ltd v Forty Two International Pty Ltd (No 4) [2010] FCA 398; 269 ALR 76 Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447 Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394 Concrete Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd v Nelson (1990) 169 CLR 594 Dallas Buyers Club LLC v iiNet Limited (No 5) [2015] FCA 1437; 115 IPR 544 Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Berhad (No 2) [2010] FCA 1296; 81 ATR 40 Dudzinski v Centrelink [2003] FCA 308 Grey v Mango Pre Paid Calling Cards Pty Ltd (2004) 141 FCR 370 Hooper v Kirella Pty Ltd (1999) 96 FCR 1 Janssen-Cilag Pty Ltd v Pfizer Pty Ltd (1992) 37 FCR 526 Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd (2013) 250 CLR 392 Lal v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (No 2) [2014] FCA 892 Larkins T J & Sons v Chelmer Holdings Pty Ltd & Van Den Broek [1965] Qd R 68 Magill v Magill (2006) 226 CLR 551 March v Stramare (E & MH) Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506 Marks v GIO Aust Holdings Ltd (1998) 196 CLR 494 Masterton Homes Pty Ltd v Palm Assets Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 234; 261 ALR 382 McCarthy v McIntyre [1999] FCA 784 Nicholson v Nicholson [1974] 2 NSWLR 59 Norcast SARL v Bradken Ltd (No 2) (2013) 219 FCR 14 Paras v Public Service Body Head of the Department of Infrastructure (No 2) [2006] FCA 652; 152 IR 352 Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals v Samsung Bioepis AU Pty Ltd (2017) 257 FCR 62 Polis v Zombor [2019] FCA 69 Polis v Zombor (No 2) [2019] FCA 856 Polis v Zombor (No 3) [2019] FCA 1477 Polis v Zombor (No 4) [2019] FCA 2101 Professional Administration Service Centres Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2012] FCAFC 180; 295 ALR 52 Ratcliffe v Barnes (1862) 2 Sw. & Tr 486; 164 ER 1085 Re Barraclough (dec'd) [1967] P1 Ritter v Godfrey [1920] 2 KB 47 St George Bank Ltd v Rabo Australia Ltd [2004] FCA 1360; 211 ALR 147 Wardley Australia Ltd v Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514 Wati v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1997) 78 FCR 543
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