Incitec Ltd v Alkimos Shipping Corporation
Case
•
[2004] FCA 698
•3 JUNE 2004
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Incitec Ltd v Alkimos Shipping Corporation [2004] FCA 698
[2004] FCA 698
3 JUNE 2004
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Incitec Ltd initiated legal proceedings against Alkimos Shipping Corporation, the first defendant, and others, concerning a shipment of goods. Alkimos Shipping Corporation filed a cross-claim against Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd, the second defendant. Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd, which was not initially a party to the proceedings, sought to intervene. The court had to decide on several matters, including whether to permit the first defendant to file a cross-claim against the second defendant and whether to allow the second defendant to file a cross-claim against Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd should be permitted to intervene in the proceedings. The court concluded that the first defendant should be granted leave to file a cross-claim against the second defendant and that the second defendant should be allowed to file a cross-claim against Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd. The court found that Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd should not be permitted to intervene in the proceedings. As a result, the motions made on behalf of Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd were dismissed. The court ordered that the motions to determine costs be stood over to a later date.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Cross-Claim
-
Jurisdiction
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Nature One Dairy (Hong Kong) Limited v Orient Biotech Sdn BHD [2025] VSC 649
Cases Citing This Decision
98
Qantas Airways Ltd v Rohrlach
[2021] NSWCA 48
Wigmans v AMP Ltd
[2019] NSWCA 243
Wigmans v AMP Ltd
[2019] NSWCA 243
Cases Cited
10
Statutory Material Cited
0
Incitec Ltd v Alkimos Shipping Corporation
[2004] FCA 348
Passlow v Butmac Pty Ltd
[2012] NSWSC 225
Dodds Family Investments Pty Ltd v Lane Industries Pty Ltd
[1993] FCA 346