NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Court of Appeal
CITATION: One.Tel Limited (In liq) v David Watson & Ors (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 396 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
HEARING DATE(S): On the papers
JUDGMENT DATE: 7 December 2009
JUDGMENT OF: Hodgson JA at 1; Campbell JA at 1; Sackville AJA at 1
DECISION: A directions hearing be held on 15 December 2009 at 9:30am
CATCHWORDS: COSTS AND SUBSEQUENT ORDERS - parties submitted proposed orders - whether proposed orders appropriate - directions hearing required to determine appropriateness of orders
LEGISLATION CITED: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 28.2; r 36.1
CATEGORY: Consequential orders
CASES CITED: One.Tel (In liq) v Watson and Anor [2009] NSWCA 282
One.Tel Limited (In Liq) (Appellant) David Patrick Watson (First Respondent) PARTIES: CGU Insurance Limited (Second Respondent) Australian Securities & Investments Commission (Third Respondent) John Greaves (Fourth Respondent)
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40074/09
B Coles QC; P Kulevski (Appellant) COUNSEL: P Harrison (First Respondent) T F Bathurst QC; A W Street SC (Second Respondent)
Clayton Utz (Appellant) SOLICITORS: Kemp Strang (First Respondent) Colin Biggers & Paisley (Second Respondent)
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court - Equity Division
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): SC 50198/06
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: McDougall J
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 19 November 2008
LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: David Watson v CGU Insurance Limited [2008] NSWSC 1409
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