UCPR: failure to Reply & deemed admissions + particulars

•March 19, 2012
•
•, ,

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

Previous PostNext Post

Related Posts

Vicarious liability – whether in the course of employment – not straightforward

•April 5, 2022•

Dependency – Personal Consumption Rates (Two Parent Families) – Table 10.1 Luntz & Harder 5th Ed

•April 1, 2022•

Recent Comments

    Archives

    Categories

    About David Cormack

    Broadly, my practice consists of Personal Injuries and associated areas of Occupational Health and Safety and General Protection Actions. Apart from this collective, I practice in Mental Health Law. I use a Restorative Justice Practice model as a tool for alternative dispute resolution, including mediations.