Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Martin v Norton Rose Fulbright Australia [2021] FCAFC 216 Appeal from: Martin v Norton Rose Fulbright Australia (No 11) [2020] FCA 1641 Martin v Norton Rose Fulbright Australia (No 12) [2020] FCA 1795
File numbers: SAD 173 of 2020 SAD 187 of 2020
Judgment of: JAGOT, KATZMANN AND BANKS-SMITH JJ
Date of judgment: 26 November 2021
Catchwords: TORTS – tort of deceit – alleged representations about filing proposed proceeding – representations not made or, if made, not knowingly false – inferences – reliance not established – causation not established – tort of deceit not committed – loss/damage not established –– loss of opportunity – aggravated and exemplary damages –– appeal dismissed and cross-appeal allowed TORTS – tort of collateral abuse of process – whether proceeding brought for an improper purpose and to achieve object outside scope of legal remedy – no improper purpose – no object outside scope of legal remedy – difference between an abuse of process and tort of collateral abuse of process – tort of collateral abuse of process not committed – appeal dismissed and cross-appeal allowed
Legislation: Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) s 18, Sch 2 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 27, 125, 131(1)(a), 136, 140(2) Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 365, 368(3), 570 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 20(2), 47(6), 51 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 1.34, 2.01(2)(a), 2.01(3)(b), 2.15(1)(a), 2.21, 2.25, 2.27, Pt 16, 29.09
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