Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Davis v Quintis Ltd (Subject to Deed of Company Arrangement) [2022] FCA 553 File number: NSD 862 of 2018
Judgment of: LEE J
Date of judgment: 5 May 2022
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – discovery – application for non-standard discovery pursuant to rr 20.15 or 20.20 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (FCR) – where standard discovery already ordered pursuant to FCR 20.14 – where no evidence that standard discovery had not been given conscientiously – application dismissed
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 20.14, 20.15, 20.17, 20.20, 20.22
Cases cited: Compagnie Financiere et Commerciale du Pacifique v Peruvian Guano Co (1882) 11 QBD 55
Division: General Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Corporations and Corporate Insolvency
Number of paragraphs: 15
Date of hearing: 5 May 2022
Counsel for the Applicants: Mr R J May
Solicitor for the Applicants: Piper Alderman
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Mr D Ross of Johnson Winter & Slattery
Counsel for the Second Respondent: Mr J Sippe
Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Mizen + Mizen
Counsel for the Third Respondent: Mr J Williams SC
Solicitor for the Third Respondent: Corrs Chambers Westgarth
ORDERS NSD 862 of 2018
BETWEEN: GEOFFREY PETER DAVIS First Applicant
GEOFFREY WILLIAM DAVIS Second Applicant
AND: QUINTIS LIMITED (SUBJECT TO DEED OF COMPANY ARRAGEMENT) (ACN 092 200 854) First Respondent
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