Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Australian Communications and Media Authority v Jones [2023] FCA 246 File number: QUD 129 of 2022
Judgment of: THOMAS J
Date of judgment: 23 March 2023
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for default judgment against the second respondent pursuant to r 5.23(2)(c) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – where second respondent failed to file notice of address for service – where second respondent failed to appear at case management hearings and interlocutory hearings – where second respondent failed to defend proceedings with due diligence – default judgment granted – second respondent taken to have admitted the relevant facts outlined in the concise statement
Legislation: Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (Cth) Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 (Cth) Federal Court Rules (Cth) Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)
Cases cited: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Dataline.Net.Au Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (2007) 161 FCR 513; [2007] FCAFC 146 Chamberlain Group, Inc v Giant Alarm System Co, Ltd (No 2) [2019] FCA 1606 Geneva Laboratories Ltd v Prestige Premium Deals Pty Ltd (No 4) (2016) 120 IPR 133; [2016] FCA 867 Speedo Holdings B.V. v Evans (No 2) [2011] FCA 1227 Tax Practitioners Board v Stroe [2022] FCA 482
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