//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2003] FCA 738
Federal Court of Australia
2003-07-22
Marshall J
Original judgment source is linked above.
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
Solicitor for the Applicant: Holding Redlich
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
Lloyd Harris
Peter Tighe