Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Gaha v Gaha [2024] FCA 531 File number(s): QUD 390 of 2022
Judgment of: COLLIER J
Date of judgment: 20 May 2024
Catchwords: CORPORATIONS - application by litigation representative for approval of deed of compromise – whether litigation representative is an 'independent' lawyer for purposes of r 9.71(2)(c) Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – whether compromise in best interest of applicant – confidentiality orders
Legislation: Corporations Act 2011 (Cth) ss 198F, 247A, 290 and 1303 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37AF Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 1.34, 9.70, 9.71
Cases cited: Allen v State of Victoria (Department of Education and Training) [2019] FCA 1074 Bushby (by his litigation representative Webling) v State of Victoria (Department of Education and Training) (No 2) [2023] FCA 340 Freeman v State of Victoria [2018] FCA 797 Jones v State of Victoria [2014] FCA 1404; (2014) 145 ALD 619 Lewis v State of Victoria (Department of Education and Training) [2019] FCA 714 Scandolera v Victoria (Department of Education and Early Childhood Development) [2015] FCA 1451 Wade v State of Victoria (No 2) [2012] FCA 1080 Young v State of Victoria (Department of Education and Training) [2018] FCA 1124
Division: General Division
Registry: Queensland
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