NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Akea Limited v Paltar Petroleum Limited [2017] NSWSC 319 Hearing dates: 29 March 2017 Decision date: 29 March 2017 Jurisdiction: Equity - Commercial List Before: Ball J Decision: The plaintiff given leave to file in court further amended summons Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – summons – application to file further amended summons – whether defendants would be unfairly prejudiced if the amendment were allowed and no adjournment granted Legislation Cited: Australian Consumer Law ss 237(1) and 243 Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act 2001 (Cth) Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) ss 56 to 60 Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) Cases Cited: Haydon v Jackson (1988) ATPR 40-845 Morellini v Adams [2011] WASCA 84 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Akea Limited (First Plaintiff) Guangyue Qian (Second Plaintiff) Xinyu Wang (Third Plaintiff) Paltar Petroleum Limited (First Defendant) Marc Alan Bruner (Second Defendant) Darryl John Causbrook (Third Defendant) Hamish Leslie McIntosh (Fourth Defendant) Stephen Wee (Seventh Defendant) Representation: Counsel: GKJ Rich SC with S Lawrance (Plaintiffs) I Jackman SC with D Klineberg (First to Fourth Defendants) PS Braham SC with Y Shariff (Seventh Defendant)
Solicitors: Arnold Bloch Liebler (Plaintiffs) North Rose Fulbright (First to Fourth Defendants) Deutsch Miller (Seventh Defendant) File Number(s): 2015/89532 Publication restriction: None
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