Lloyd Harris v Peter Tighe

Federal Court of Australia|2003-07-22|Before: Marshall J

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 These reasons for judgment should be read together with the reasons for judgment in CEPU v Harris [2003] FCA 737 which was published immediately before the publication of these reasons. 2 The rule to show cause in this matter would have been made absolute but for the validation order made in CEPU v Harris. Consequently it is appropriate to order that the rule to show cause be discharged. I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Marshall.

Dated: 22 July 2003 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr R Niall

Counsel for the 1st, 4th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 13th, 17th, 19th, 20th, 21st, 24th, 25th, 27th, 28th, 31st, 34th, 35th, 36th, 39th, 40th, 47th, 50th to 66th and 68th Respondents: Mr R Kenzie QC with Ms C Howell

Solicitor for the1st, 4th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 13th, 17th, 19th, 20th, 21st, 24th, 25th, 27th, 28th, 31st, 34th, 35th, 36th, 39th, 40th, 47th, 50th to 66th and 68th Respondents: Slater & Gordon

Date of Hearing: 18 and 19 June 2003

Completion of Written Submissions 7 July 2003

Date of Judgment: 22 July 2003

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (8 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (1)