Felkro Nominees Pty Ltd & Anor v Commonwealth of Australia & Anor [1998] FCA 430

Felkro Nominees Pty Ltd & Anor v Commonwealth of Australia & Anor [1998] FCA 430

The respondents' motion was granted because it sought in good faith to raise a controversy capable of being pursued, namely whether the proceeding was being pursued for the proper assignee or unlawfully maintained for another company, and granting the relief would facilitate resolution of matters in controversy; the authorities relied on did not preclude relief.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 April 1998
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Motion in Federal Court Proceeding / Respondents' Motion Dated 9 April 1998 Seeking Further Hearing, Leave to Adduce Further Evidence, and Subpoenas Returnable
Outcome
Respondents' motion granted; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Motions' 'leave to Adduce Further Evidence' 'subpoenas' 'permanent Stay or Dismissal' 'authority to Commence or Pursue Proceedings' 'maintenance']
['civil Procedure'] ['interlocutory Motions' 'leave to Adduce Further Evidence' 'subpoenas' 'permanent Stay or Dismissal' 'authority to Commence or Pursue Proceedings' 'maintenance']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Motion in Federal Court Proceeding / Respondents' Motion Dated 9 April 1998 Seeking Further Hearing, Leave to Adduce Further Evidence, and Subpoenas Returnable

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondents' motion dated 16 March 1998 should be listed for further hearing." 'Whether the respondents should have leave to adduce further evidence in support of their earlier motion.' 'Whether subpoenas issued to Alfred Felberbaum, William Shagrin or David Chapman should be made returnable before the Court.' 'Whether the present motion was made in good faith and was precluded by the principles in Martell v Consett Iron Co Ltd as applied in Hodges v State of New South Wales.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents' motion was granted because it sought in good faith to raise a controversy capable of being pursued, namely whether the proceeding was being pursued for the proper assignee or unlawfully maintained for another company, and granting the relief would facilitate resolution of matters in controversy; the authorities relied on did not preclude relief.

Court Disposition

Respondents' motion granted; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ["The respondents' motion dated 16 March 1988 be listed for further hearing on 7 May 1998." 'The respondents have leave to adduce further evidence in support of their motion.' 'Any subpoena issued to Alfred Felberbaum, William Shagrin or David Chapman and any further subpoenas be made returnable before the Court at...