{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Not really here but remember the ajay partitions case

Info iconThis preview shows pages 2–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
through a process – has this suited for a joinder? not really here but remember the ajay partitions case where there 4. . plaintiffs. so possibly can have joinder but this addresses itself for case actions order 18 facilitates a kind of representative proceeding and should alwauys think of it if you yu use term class action broadly may include it in scope. talk briefly about order 18. why it would not be a good rule to use here because there is a problem with order 18 and that is damages. there is also the sep contracts problem but esanda sorted it out – sd it okay with sepc ontracts but didn’t address damages q, so can’t get damages and that is a severe limitation. either the supreme crt act or the fedcrt depending which sue in. let’s say they decided to sue in fed crt.would this be suitable for class action? s33c fca or sca says you need seven or more. seems to be seven or more here. need claims of similar or related circs – eating contaminated oystsers fits the bill . need substantial issue of fact or law and this is here. thus seems suitable fr class action. assuming can bring class action how should class be identified and deccribed in crt docs. s33h says that you don’t need name the mmebers of the group or specify the number in the group you just need to identify the group members so have abash at formulating a description that ocvers the class so Rodney bland on his own behalf and on behalf of all persons who suffered food poisoning as a cosneuqwnece of consuming oyster meals at la liberte restaurant at this address between 1 and 15 feb 2009. does he need to contact other vics? no – opt out. they are in unless they opt out. bulding from that – is there a possibility that he may represent people who do not want to be parties to a proceeding yes because some might not know depending on how you notify under s33j there is scope for people not knoing os they might be carried along and bound by judgment of course if they find out they have the option to opt out. part 4a rules apply. is Rodney likely to be out of pocet? yes he wil;l be – the fed crt provision of s43 (1)(a) s33zb supreme crt – the rep party is liable to costs order. CAN JUST FOCUS ON SUPREME COURT (b) question 5 can issue proceedings in qld due to vesting of crts but the d is able to move to have it transferred s5(3) of legn. q you ask before cross-vesting would have been heard in scv that favours transfer. extent to which matters of local law – common law lciam so doesn’t matter in vic or qld as cl fairly similar. interests of justice – good oppotuntiy jrdn question. the hca in bhp sd nuts and bolts case management exercise factors they look at are the same in ada case – where to witness live? where to parties live? given witnesses and parties are Victorian and subject matter arose in Victoria in the interests of justice, favour matter being hear in victor. so this issue arises in a number of different fora, something that you set out for yourself. issue
Background image of page 2

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page2 / 4

not really here but remember the ajay partitions case where...

This preview shows document pages 2 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon bookmark
Ask a homework question - tutors are online