NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Maser v Edmondson [2009] NSWSC 966
HEARING DATE(S) : 04/06/09
JUDGMENT DATE : 17 September 2009
JURISDICTION : Equity Division
JUDGMENT OF : Macready AsJ at 1
DECISION : Paragraphs 81 and 82
CATCHWORDS : Appeal and new trial. Application for review of Registrar's decision on prelimnary discovery. Nature of proceedings and matter of practice and procedure. Application for preliminary discovery. Principles applicable. Difference between UCPR and Federal Court rules.
PARTIES : Maser Technology Group Ltd v Keith Edmonson (first defendant), Dingbat Technology Pty Limited (third defendant) and Logitek Australia Pty Ltd (fourth defendant)
FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 1988/2008
Mr MS Willmott SC for plaintiff COUNSEL : Mr S Meehan for 1st defendant Mr L Gor for 3rd and 4th defendants
Dunstan Legal for plaintiff SOLICITORS : Harris Friedman Hyde Page for 1st defendant Dooley & Associates for 3rd and 4th defendants
- 1 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION
Associate Justice Macready
Thursday 17 September 2009
1988/2008 Maser Technology Group Pty Ltd v Keith Edmonson, Dingbat Technology Pty Ltd and Logitech Australia Pty Ltd. JUDGMENT 1 His Honour: This is the hearing of a notice of motion filed 23 December 2008 by the plaintiff in which they seek a review of a decision by Registrar Walton given on 8 December 2008. The Registrar dismissed an application for preliminary discovery made by the plaintiff and ordered the plaintiff to pay the first, third and fourth defendants' costs.
2 In an amended summons of 22 July 2008, the plaintiff, Maser Technology Group Pty Ltd, made an application for preliminary discovery, pursuant to Uniform Civil Procedure Rule ('UCPR') r 5.3 against the first defendant, Keith Edmonson, the third defendant, Dingbat Technology Pty Ltd, and the fourth defendant, Logitek Australia Pty Ltd. The plaintiff asserted that he has or might have a right to obtain relief against: (a) the first defendant for breach of his loyalty and or fiduciary obligations to the plaintiff and or for breach of his statutory obligations under s 182 of the Corporations Act 2001 ; and (b) the third defendant and the fourth defendant for having been knowingly involved in those breaches or received benefit from those breaches.
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