Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Koadlow v Atkins [2023] FCA 136 File number: VID 374 of 2022
Judgment of: MCEVOY J
Date of judgment: 23 February 2023
Date of publication of reasons: 27 February 2023
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether a self-executing order should be made striking out the respondents' defence and giving judgment on liability against them if outlines of evidence for trial not filed by respondents by a particular date and time – continued non-compliance with Court timetabling orders by the respondents – where the Court is satisfied in the circumstances that a self-executing order is appropriate – consequences of notification by the first respondent that he has lodged a debtor's petition
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 37M, 37N and 37P Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 5.21, 5.22 and 5.23
Cases cited: Lu v University of New South Wales [2022] FCA 588
Division: General Division
Registry: Victoria
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Corporations and Corporate Insolvency
Number of paragraphs: 20
Date of last submission/s: 23 February 2023
Date of hearing: 23 February 2023
Counsel for the applicants: Mark Robins KC with Nick Elias
Solicitor for the applicants: Nathan Kuperholz
Counsel for the respondents: The respondents did not appear
ORDERS VID 374 of 2022
BETWEEN: DAVID CHARLES KOADLOW First applicant
KADOO PTY. LIMITED Second applicant
BINVID PTY LTD Third applicant
AND: MITCHELL ALEXANDER GRAY ATKINS 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