Federal Court of Australia
CATCHWORDS EVIDENCE - RULINGS - ruling on application to inspect second applicant's proof of evidence - production of proof of evidence - appication for leave to amend statement of claim to include a cliam for exemplary damages - similar fact evidence objection - admissibility of transcript from Hughes proceeding - ruling on reports of financial experts - ruling on legal professional privilege of letter of instruction - admissibility of oral evidence by Mr Cummins Trade Practices Commission v TNT Management Pty Ltd & ors (1984) 56 ALR 647 Attorney-General (NT) v Maurice (1986) 161 CLR 475 Southern Equities Corporation Ltd v West Australian Government Holdings Ltd (1993) 10 WAR 1 Mancorp Pty Ltd v Baulderstone Pty Ltd (1991) 57 SASR 87 Instant Colour Pty Ltd v Canon Australia Pty Ltd (Heerey J, 9 December 1993, judgment no. 994/93, unreported) Lamb v Cotogno (1987) 164 CLR 1 Uren v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (1966) 117 CLR 118 Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129 XL Petroleum (NSW) Pty Ltd v Caltex Oil (Aust) Pty Ltd (1985) 155 CLR 448 Davis v Russell McVeagh McKenzie Bartleet & Co [1994] 2 NZLR 175 Warwick v Foulkes (1844) 12 M&W 507 Walter v Alltools Ltd (1944) 61 TLR 39 Harding v Kummer (High Court, Auckland, A 1107/80, 21 March 1983) Jaldiver Pty Ltd v Nelumbo Pty Ltd (1993) ATPR (Digest) 46-097 D F Lyons Pty v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1991) 100 ALR 468 Peet & Co Ltd v Rocci [1985] WAR 164 Fisher v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (11 April 1990, judgment no.286/1990, unreported) Turner v Jenolan Investments Pty Ltd (1985) ATPR 40-571 Martin v Osborne (1936) 55 CLR 367 Aroutsidis v Illawarra Nominees Pty Ltd (1990) 21 FCR 500 Shepherd v R (1990) 170 CLR 573 Hoch v R (1988) 165 CLR 292 Telnet Pty Ltd T/A Osborne Computers Australia v Takapana Investments Pty Ltd T/A Ipex Information Technology Group & ors (Olney J, 8 July 1994, judgment no.449/94, unreported) Complete Technology Pty Ltd v Toshiba (Australia) Pty Ltd (1994) 53 FCR 125 Printing, Telegraph and Construction Company of agents A G E and C E Havas v Drucker (1894) 2 QB 801 British Thomson‑Houston Co Ltd v British Insulated and Helsby Cables Ltd [1924] 2 Ch 160 Brickell v Hulse (1837) 2 Ex.675
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