UCPR: failure to Reply & deemed admissions + particulars

Roe v Link-up (Qld) Aboriginal Corporation [2012] QDC 36

This is a useful decision reviewing the decisions below in the context of an application asserting a deemed admission under UCPR 166, the circumstances when a Reply is required and the added combination of a request for particulars.

Ballesteros v Chidlow & Anor No 2 [2005] QSC 285; Melco Engineering Pty Ltd v Eriez Magnetics Pty Ltd [2007] QSC 198 & Thiess Pty Ltd v FFE Minerals Australia Pty Ltd [2007] QSC 209.

Brisbane Barrister – David Cormack