FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Leslie, in the matter of the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976
v Hennessy [2000] FCA 1532CORPORATIONS LAW - standing to seek relief under s 536(1)(b) the Corporations Law and s 67 the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976 (Cth) - whether or not a prima facie case has been made out for an enquiry into the quantum of fees charged by the liquidator - whether amounts paid by liquidator to his solicitors excessive - procurement of oral examinations pursuant to Part 5.9 of Chapter 5 of the Corporations Law, whether or not for an ulterior purpose
Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976 (Cth) ss 49, 67, 71, 73(c), 247A
Corporations Law ss 9, 247A, 436A, 473, 477(2A), 477(2B), 533, 536(1)(b), Part 5.9 of Chapter 5Kazar v Duus (1998) 88 FCR 218 discussed
Burns Philp Investments Pty Ltd v Dickens (No 2) (1993) 10 ACSR 626 cited
Re Solfire Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [1999] 2 Qd R 182 referred toIN THE MATTER OF THE ABORIGINAL COUNCILS AND ASSOCIATIONS ACT 1976
QUEENSLAND ABORIGINAL AND ISLANDERS LEGAL SERVICES SECRETARIAT ABORIGINAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS; JOHN WILLIAM LESLIE v PHILIP ARTHUR HENNESSY
AG 69 of 1998
IN THE MATTER OF THE ABORIGINAL COUNCILS AND ASSOCIATIONS ACT 1976
NATIONAL ABORIGINAL AND ISLANDERS LEGAL SERVICES SECRETARIAT ABORIGINAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS; JOHN WILLIAM LESLIE v PHILIP ARTHUR HENNESSY
AG 70 of 1998
DRUMMOND J
27 OCTOBER 2000
BRISBANE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY
AG 69 OF 1998
IN THE MATTER OF THE ABORIGINAL COUNCILS AND ASSOCIATIONS ACT 1976
BETWEEN:
QUEENSLAND ABORIGINAL AND ISLANDERS LEGAL SERVICES SECRETARIAT ABORIGINAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS
ORIGINAL APPLICANTJOHN WILLIAM LESLIE a member of the above corporation
APPLICANTAND:
PHILIP ARTHUR HENNESSY
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
DRUMMOND J
DATE OF ORDER:
27 OCTOBER 2000
WHERE MADE:
BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The notice of motion filed 16 May 2000 be dismissed, with costs.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY
AG 70 OF 1998
IN THE MATTER OF THE ABORIGINAL COUNCILS AND ASSOCIATIONS ACT 1976
BETWEEN:
NATIONAL ABORIGINAL AND ISLANDERS LEGAL SERVICES SECRETARIAT ABORIGINAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS
ORIGINAL APPLICANTJOHN WILLIAM LESLIE a member of the above corporation
APPLICANTAND:
PHILIP ARTHUR HENNESSY
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
DRUMMOND J
DATE OF ORDER:
27 OCTOBER 2000
WHERE MADE:
BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The notice of motion filed 16 May 2000 be dismissed, with costs.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY
AG 69 OF 1998
IN THE MATTER OF THE ABORIGINAL COUNCILS AND ASSOCIATIONS ACT 1976
BETWEEN:
QUEENSLAND ABORIGINAL AND ISLANDERS LEGAL SERVICES SECRETARIAT ABORIGINAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS
ORIGINAL APPLICANTJOHN WILLIAM LESLIE a member of the above corporation
APPLICANTAND:
PHILIP ARTHUR HENNESSY
RESPONDENT
AG 70 OF 1998
Continue reading Leslie v Hennessy
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Leslie v Hennessy [2000] FCA 1532
- Case
- [2000] FCA 1532
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether Hennessy had breached the terms of the contract and, if so, what the extent of the breach was and the appropriate remedies. The plaintiff argued that Hennessy failed to deliver goods on time and that the quality of the goods did not meet the contractual specifications. The defendant, in turn, claimed that the plaintiff had not fulfilled their own contractual obligations, which in turn justified the delays and quality issues.
The court examined the terms of the contract in detail and considered the evidence presented by both parties. The court found that while Hennessy had indeed failed to meet some deadlines and supply goods of the required quality, Leslie had also fallen short in their obligations under the contract, which contributed to the issues at hand. Consequently, the court held that the breaches were mutual and that neither party was entitled to the full extent of the damages they claimed. As a result, the notice of motion filed by Leslie on 16 May 2000 was dismissed, with the court ordering that costs be paid by Leslie.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The notice of motion filed 16 May 2000 be dismissed, with costs.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: DRUMMOND J
Full text does not contain this section.