Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Chadwick v State of New South Wales (No 4) [2024] FCA 651 File number: NSD 1307 of 2020
Judgment of: KENNETT J
Date of judgment: 20 June 2024
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – strike out application – where lengthy procedural history and significant non-compliance with timetabling orders – where respondents allege amended concise statement insufficiently precise and contains allegations from which they are immune – consideration of nature and function of concise statements
Legislation: Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) s 46PR Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37N Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 4.12, 8.05, 16.01, 16.02, 16.07, 16.13, 16.21
Cases cited: Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Delor Vue Apartments CTS 39788 [2021] FCAFC 121; 287 FCR 388 Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Westpac Securities Administration Limited [2019] FCAFC 187; 272 FCR 170 Chadwick v State of New South Wales [2022] FCA 918 Chadwick v State of New South Wales [2022] FCA 1138 Chadwick v State of New South Wales [2022] FCA 1498 Chadwick v State of New South Wales [2023] FCA 945 Mann v O'Neill (1997) 191 CLR 204
Division: General Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Number of paragraphs: 53
Date of hearing: 7 June 2024
Counsel for the Applicant: M Dulhunty
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