NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Metal Manufactuers v Nautitech P/L & 2 Ors [2001] NSWSC 1128 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20291/2000 HEARING DATE(S) : 5 December 2001 JUDGMENT DATE : 10 December 2001
Metal Manufacturers Limited (PLaintiff) Nautitech Pty Limited (First Defendant) PARTIES : Richard Terrence Tamba (Second Defendant)
Mariusz Krzysztof Dudzik (Third Defendant) JUDGMENT OF : Master Harrison
Mr S A Kerr (PLaintiff) COUNSEL : Mr C Birch SC (Defendants) Phillips Fox (Plaintiff) SOLICITORS : Thurlow Fisher Bankstown (Defendant) CATCHWORDS : Dismiss proceedings for want of prosecution LEGISLATION CITED : Supreme Court Rules Birkett v James [1977] 2 All ER 801; AC 297 at 318 Witten v Lombard Australia Ltd (1968) 88 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 405 Southern Cross Exploration NL v Fire & All Risks Insurance Co Ltd (1986) 4 NSWLR 491 CASES CITED : McKenna v McKenna [1984] VR 665 Stollznow v Calvert [1980] 2 NSWLR 749 Grovit & Ors v Doctor & Ors [1997] 2 All ER 417 Securum Finance Ltd v Ashton [2001] Ch 291 DECISION : (1) Paragraph 3 of the amended notice of motion filed 14 November 2001 in relation to subpoenae is stood over generally; (2) The defendants are to file and serve a defence on or before 14 January 2002; (3) The plaintiff is to file and serve DCM documents and experts reports on or before 29 March 2002; (4) The defendants are to pay the plaintiff's costs.
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