FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
GAYE LUCK (FORMERLY KUPERMAN) v DR ROSS HUNTER, R B HUNTER (MEDICAL) PTY LTD ACN 088 496 995, NOCDOC, DR D MCALPINE, AITKENVALE MEDICAL CENTRE PTY LTD ACN 011 003 231, DR PETER BUCHANAN, DR HENRY LAU, CONSULTANT PATHOLOGISTS (TOWNSVILLE) PTY LTD ACN 010 106 680, DR GRANT WITHEY AND QUEENSLAND X-RAY SERVICES BN 3332160
V 392 OF 2000
DOWSETT J
7 DECEMBER 2000
BRISBANE
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
V 392 OF 2000 |
|
BETWEEN: |
GAYE LUCK (FORMERLY KUPERMAN) APPLICANT
|
|
AND: |
DR ROSS HUNTER FIRST RESPONDENT
R B HUNTER (MEDICAL) PTY LTD ACN 088 496 995 SECOND RESPONDENT
NOCDOC THIRD RESPONDENT
DR D MCALPINE FOURTH RESPONDENT
AITKENVALE MEDICAL CENTRE PTY LTD ACN 011 003 231 FIFTH RESPONDENT
DR PETER BUCHANAN SIXTH RESPONDENT
DR HENRY LAU SEVENTH RESPONDENT
CONSULTANT PATHOLOGISTS (TOWNSVILLE) PTY LTD ACN 010 106 680 EIGHTH RESPONDENT
DR GRANT WITHEY NINTH RESPONDENT
QUEENSLAND X-RAY SERVICES BN3332160 TENTH RESPONDENT
|
|
DATE OF ORDER: |
|
|
WHERE MADE: |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The applicant’s notice of motion for leave to appeal filed 20 November 2000 be struck out.
2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the notice of motion for leave to appeal.
3. The applicant’s notice of motion for a stay filed 3 November 2000 be struck out.
4. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the notice of motion for a stay.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
V 392 OF 2000 |
|
BETWEEN: |
APPLICANT
|
|
AND: |
FIRST RESPONDENT
R B HUNTER (MEDICAL) PTY LTD ACN 088 496 995 SECOND RESPONDENT
NOCDOC THIRD RESPONDENT
DR D MCALPINE FOURTH RESPONDENT
AITKENVALE MEDICAL CENTRE PTY LTD ACN 011 003 231 FIFTH RESPONDENT
DR PETER BUCHANAN SIXTH RESPONDENT
DR HENRY LAU SEVENTH RESPONDENT
CONSULTANT PATHOLOGISTS (TOWNSVILLE) PTY LTD ACN 010 106 680 EIGHTH RESPONDENT
DR GRANT WITHEY NINTH RESPONDENT
QUEENSLAND X-RAY SERVICES BN3332160 TENTH RESPONDENT
|
|
JUDGE: |
|
|
DATE: |
|
|
PLACE: |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 I am now dealing with the motions in action V 392 of 2000. There are two separate notices of motion, one filed on 3 November 2000 seeking a stay and the other filed on 20 November seeking leave to appeal. It seems to me that with regard to the latter, similar considerations apply as in the earlier matters. The notice of motion should therefore be struck out with costs. The notice of motion for a stay should be similarly struck out with costs.
|
I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraph is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett. |
Associate:
Dated: 22 February 2001
|
There was no appearance for the Applicant: |
|
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the First, Second, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Respondents: |
Mr R Traves |
|
|
|
|
Solicitor for the First, Second, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Respondents: |
Tress Cocks & Maddox |
|
|
|
|
Solicitor for the Fifth Respondent: |
Boulton Cleary & Kern |
|
|
|
|
Date of Hearing: |
7 December 2000 |
|
|
|
|
Date of Judgment: |
7 December 2000 |
