Cameron, Peter Stuart & Anor v Goldtek Australia Pty Ltd & Ors [1997] FCA 29

Mr Lewis had not discontinued his cross-claim against Mr Frater because no notice of discontinuance had been filed in the manner contemplated by O 22 r 5, notwithstanding his letters and statements indicating an intention or desire to discontinue and Mr Frater's consent to discontinuance.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 05 February 1997
Procedural Posture: Practice and Procedure in Trade Practices Act 1974 Proceedings / Reasons for Judgment on Whether the Cross Claim Had Been Discontinued
Outcome: The Court held that the cross-claim had not been discontinued and adjourned the matter for further directions.
Legal Topics: ['discontinuance of Proceedings' 'notice of Discontinuance' 'consent to Discontinuance' 'costs of Discontinued Proceedings' 'federal Court Rules Order 22']

['practice and Procedure' 'trade Practices'] ['discontinuance of Proceedings' 'notice of Discontinuance' 'consent to Discontinuance' 'costs of Discontinued Proceedings' 'federal Court Rules Order 22']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Procedural Posture

Practice and Procedure in Trade Practices Act 1974 Proceedings / Reasons for Judgment on Whether the Cross Claim Had Been Discontinued

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether Mr Lewis had discontinued his cross-claim against Mr Frater by letters to the Registry or by statements in Court indicating a desire to discontinue.' 'Whether an order for costs should be made on the basis that the cross-claim had been discontinued.']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

The Court held that the cross-claim had not been discontinued and adjourned the matter for further directions.

Orders

['The cross-claim be adjourned to Tuesday 4 March 1997 at 9.30am.']