Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Huntsman Chemical Company Australia Pty Limited v Narellan Pools Pty Limited [2011] FCAFC 7 Citation: Huntsman Chemical Company Australia Pty Limited v Narellan Pools Pty Limited [2011] FCAFC 7
Appeal from: Narellan Pools Pty Ltd v Huntsman Chemical Company Australia Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 267
Parties: HUNTSMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED (ACN 004 146 338) v NARELLAN POOLS PTY LIMITED (ACN 003 607 681) AND NARELLAN FRANCHISE PTY LIMITED (ACN 099 345 712)
File number: NSD 527 of 2010
Judges: MOORE, FLICK AND YATES JJ
Date of judgment: 1 February 2011
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – onus of proof – balance of probabilities – need to provide reasons – an erroneous but non-prejudicial reason Held: Appeal dismissed
Legislation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 140
Cases cited: Beale v Government Insurance Office of NSW (1997) 48 NSWLR 430, cited Bisley Investment Corporation v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1982) 40 ALR 233, cited Chen v Zhang [2009] NSWCA 202, cited Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298, applied Kuligowski v Metrobus [2004] HCA 34, 220 CLR 363, cited Mifsud v Campbell (1990) 21 NSWLR 725, considered Narellan Pools Pty Ltd v Huntsman Chemical Company Australia Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 267, affirmed Paton v National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Ltd [2000] FCA 684, cited Rhesa Shipping Co SA v Edmunds [1985] 1 WLR 948, considered Vocisano v Vocisano (1974) 130 CLR 267, cited
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate