Jebral Nominees Pty Ltd v The Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney-General
Case
•
[2016] QCAT 118
•24 May 2016
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Jebral Nominees Pty Ltd v The Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2016] QCAT 118
[2016] QCAT 118
24 May 2016
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Jebral Nominees Pty Ltd filed a claim against the fund, seeking relief from various parties involved in a property transaction. The Chief Executive of the Department of Justice and Attorney-General was among the respondents to the claim. Jebral sought the production of specific documents and things from the respondents and a witness, and also sought legal representation in the proceedings. The legal issues before the court involved the scope of the orders sought by Jebral and whether those orders should be granted.
The court considered the relief sought by Jebral and the objections raised by the respondents. The court found that the orders sought by Jebral were not overly broad and that the respondents were able to comply with the orders. The court also found that the applicants for legal representation were entitled to be represented by Garland Waddington Solicitors. The court ordered that the respondents provide specific information and documents to Jebral and the Chief Executive, and that the applicants be granted legal representation.
Jebral's applications for directions requiring another party to produce a document, thing, or information were dismissed. The court found that the applications were not necessary and that the information sought could be obtained through the orders already granted. The court made specific orders regarding the provision of information and documents by the respondents, and the legal representation of the applicants.
In summary, the court granted Jebral's applications for legal representation and the provision of specific information and documents by the respondents. The court dismissed Jebral's applications for directions requiring another party to produce a document, thing, or information.
The court considered the relief sought by Jebral and the objections raised by the respondents. The court found that the orders sought by Jebral were not overly broad and that the respondents were able to comply with the orders. The court also found that the applicants for legal representation were entitled to be represented by Garland Waddington Solicitors. The court ordered that the respondents provide specific information and documents to Jebral and the Chief Executive, and that the applicants be granted legal representation.
Jebral's applications for directions requiring another party to produce a document, thing, or information were dismissed. The court found that the applications were not necessary and that the information sought could be obtained through the orders already granted. The court made specific orders regarding the provision of information and documents by the respondents, and the legal representation of the applicants.
In summary, the court granted Jebral's applications for legal representation and the provision of specific information and documents by the respondents. The court dismissed Jebral's applications for directions requiring another party to produce a document, thing, or information.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Discovery & Disclosure
-
Representation
-
Limitation Periods
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Davis v Metro North Hospital and Health Service [2018] QCAT 8
Cases Citing This Decision
6
Beck v Rowan
[2018] QCAT 142
Davis v Metro North Hospital and Health Service
[2018] QCAT 8
Barns v Commissioner, Queensland Fire & Emergency Services
[2017] QCAT 460
Cases Cited
2
Statutory Material Cited
0
Smith v Queensland Building Services Authority
[2011] QCAT 66
Cowley v Queensland Building Services Authority
[2011] QCAT 98
Smith v Queensland Building Services Authority
[2011] QCAT 66