Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Morris v Danoz Directions Pty Ltd (in Liq) (No 2) [2010] FCA 836 Citation: Morris v Danoz Directions Pty Ltd (in Liq) (No 2) [2010] FCA 836
Parties: BENJAMIN MARK MORRIS and SUSAN BARBARA MORRIS v DANOZ DIRECTIONS PTY LTD (IN LIQ), MICHAEL AMLER, TREVOR GOODMAN, TVN CORPORATION LTD, ROBERT EDWIN HUNT, RONALD BASKIN and NICKOLAS JAMES GIANNAKOULIAS
File number(s): NSD 1313 of 2008
Judge: PERRAM J
Date of judgment: 10 August 2010
Catchwords: EVIDENCE – Admissibility – Opinion evidence – Expert evidence – Existence of "basis rule" – Whether "counsel of perfection" PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Amendment of pleadings – Delay – Absence of explanation
Legislation: Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 52
Cases cited: Adler v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2003) 179 FLR 1 cited Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Danoz Direct Pty Ltd (2003) 60 IPR 296 cited Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Plymin (2003) 46 ACSR 126 cited Dean-Willcocks (as liq of Austral Pacific Group Ltd (in liq)) v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (2003) 45 ACSR 564 cited Lewis (as liq of Doran Constructions Pty Ltd (in liq)) v Doran (2005) 54 ACSR 410 cited Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705 explained Morris v Danoz Directions Pty Ltd (in Liq) (No 1) [2009] FCA 134 cited Paino v Paino (2008) 40 Fam LR 96 cited Playspace Playground Pty Ltd v Osborn [2009] FCA 1486 cited Sydneywide Distributors Pty Ltd v Red Bull Australia Pty Ltd (2002) 55 IPR 354 applied
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