NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : ASIC V Sweeney [2001] NSWSC 114 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 3339/99 HEARING DATE(S) : 1 March 2001 JUDGMENT DATE : 6 March 2001
PARTIES : Australian Securities & Investments Commission (P) Charles Augustine Sweeney (D) JUDGMENT OF : Austin J
COUNSEL : M Pembroke SC with J Stevenson (P) I Barker QC, M Oakes SC & S Gorrick (D) SOLICITORS : Jan Redfern, Solicitor for Australian Securities & Investments Commission (P) Noel F Bracks & Company (D) CATCHWORDS : PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - plaintiff's application to stay or dismiss defendant's notice of motion to set aside orders for substituted service - whether defendant's application permits assessment of adequacy of plaintiff's evidence - proper grounds for defendant's application - whether a reasonable basis for abuse of process exists LEGISLATION CITED : Supreme Court Rules Pt 9 r 10, Pt 10 r 1A, r 2, r 2A, r 6A, Pt 11 r 8 Agar v Hyde (2000) 74 ALJR 1230 Australian Softwood Forests Pty Ltd v Attorney-General (NSW) (1981) 148 CLR 121 Brimson v Rocla Concrete Pipes Limited [1982] 2 NSWLR 937 CASES CITED : Corporate Affairs Commission v Transphere Pty Ltd (1989) 7 ACLC 205 Laurie v Carroll (1958) 98 CLR 310 Permanent Trustee Australia Ltd v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd (1994) 15 ACSR 722 Tobacco Institute of Australia Ltd v Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations Inc (1993) 113 ALR 257 Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509 DECISION : Direction confining defendant's application to a single identified point of law
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