NSW Caselaw
Reported Decision : (2004) 22 ACLC 766
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Auburn Council v Austin Australia Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2004] NSWSC 141 HEARING DATE(S) : 8/3/04 JUDGMENT DATE : 8 March 2004
JURISDICTION: Equity Division Commercial List JUDGMENT OF : Bergin J DECISION : See Paragraph 50
CATCHWORDS : [Commercial Arbitration] - Party to arbitration in administration - Whether arbitration proceedings are - "proceedings in a court" within the meaning of s440D of the Corporations Act 2001- Whether leave necessary - Application for leave to proceed with application for security for costs Arbitration Act 1996 (UK) LEGISLATION CITED : Commercial Arbitration Act 1984 (NSW) Corporations Act 2001 Alliance Petrolum Australia NL v The Australian Gas Light Company (1983) 34 SASR 215 Arpic Pty Ltd v Austin Austin Pty Ltd (2004] NSWSC 83 AWA Ltd v Exicom Australia Ltd (1990) 19 NSWLR 705 CASES CITED : Brian Rochford (administrators appointed) Ltd v Textile Clothing & Footwear Union of NSW (1998) 30 ACSR 38 Circaz Pty Ltd v Manolidis (2003) 45 ACSR 542 Johnson v Macri and Marcellino Pty Ltd unreported, NSWSC Cole J 08.06.90 Jones v Hall (1942) 42 SR (NSW) 203 NSW Bar Association v Muirhead (1988) 14 NSWLR 173 PARTIES : Auburn Council (Plaintiff) Austin Australia Pty Ltd (Defendant) FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 50008/04 COUNSEL : D. Williams SC with M. Cohen (Plaintiff) T. Davie (Defendant) SOLICITORS : Matthews Folbigg Pty Ltd (Plaintiff) Colin Biggers & Paisley (Defendant)
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