EPAS Ltd v James

[2007] QSC 127

To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon next to the case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.

Event	Citation or File	Date	Notes
Primary Judgment	[2007] QSC 38	27 Feb 2007	Application by defendant AMP to restrain solicitors and counsel who act for the plaintiff in proceeding SC3544/00 from continuing to do so; same solicitors and counsel act for EPAS as plaintiff in S3544/2000 and for TCSSL as plaintiff in SC3543/2000 (where EPAS is the seventh defendant); unpersuaded that it would be contrary to the due administration of justice and the integrity of the judicial process for the solicitors and counsel to continue to act for EPAS; application dismissed: Wilson J.
Primary Judgment	[2007] QSC 47	06 Mar 2007	Costs of disqualification applications following reasons given in [2007] QSC 38; AMP pay costs on the indemnity basis, as well as the costs thrown away from the adjournment of other applications that were delayed due to the disqualification applications: Wilson J.
Primary Judgment	[2007] QSC 49	07 Mar 2007	Application by AMP for leave to appeal cost orders made in [2007] QSC 49; application for leave dismissed: Wilson J.
Primary Judgment	[2007] QSC 155	01 Jun 2007	Costs judgment following reasons in strike out application judgment [2007] QSC 127; applicant pay AMP's costs on 2 April 2007 and 9 February 2007 applications: Wilson J.
Primary Judgment	[2007] QSC 127	01 Jun 2007	Strike out applications against AMP's defence in both SC3543/00 and SC3544/00 by plaintiff in both proceedings dismissed; ordered that AMP file particulars for losses and gains relied upon: Wilson J.
Primary Judgment	[2007] QSC 162	05 Jul 2007	Application by plaintiff in SC3543/00 and SC3544/00 for summary judgment against certain defendants not active in proceeding; applications adjourned to a date to be fixed: Wilson J.
Appeal Determined (QCA)	[2007] QCA 212	27 Jun 2007	Appeal dismissed with costs; appeal by AMP against decision in SC3544/00 to dismiss application for orders restraining lawyers for EPAS from continuing to act in both trial division proceedings; seeking to utilise inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to control the conduct of its officers; it is ASIC which speaks for EPAS in giving instructions to the company's lawyers for the purpose of proceedings instituted by ASIC: Jerrard and Keane JJA and White J.

Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode

EPAS Ltd v James[2007] QSC 127

EPAS Ltd v James[2007] QSC 127

Editorial Notes

Litigation History

Appeal Status