Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA McNickle v Huntsman Chemical Company Australia Pty Ltd (Common Questions) [2023] FCA 662 File number: VID 243 of 2020
Judgment of: LEE J
Date of judgment: 14 June 2023
Date of publication of reasons: 20 June 2023
Catchwords: REPRESENTATIVE PROCEEDINGS – application to amend initial trial common questions – importance of "Merck orders" in proceedings under Pt IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – application dismissed
Legislation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 135 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) Pt IVA, ss 33ZB, 33ZB(a) 33ZC(1)
Cases cited: Dillon v RBS Group (Australia) Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 896; (2017) 252 FCR 150 Gill v Ethicon Sàrl (No 3) [2019] FCA 587; (2019) 369 ALR 175 Merck Sharp & Dohme (Australia) Pty Ltd v Peterson [2009] FCAFC 26; (2009) 355 ALR 20
Division: General Division
Registry: Victoria
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Regulator and Consumer Protection
Number of paragraphs: 24
Date of hearing: 14 June 2023
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr A Clements SC and Ms M Szydzik SC with Ms R Howe
Solicitor for the Applicant: Maurice Blackburn
Counsel for the Respondents: Ms K O'Gorman and Mr R Ajzensztat
Solicitor for the Respondents: Herbert Smith Freehills
ORDERS VID 243 of 2020
BETWEEN: KELVIN MCNICKLE Applicant
AND: HUNTSMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 004 146 338) First Respondent
MONSANTO AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 006 725 560) Second 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