Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
G.E. Shaw & Associates (ACT) Pty Ltd v Narayan [2014] FCA 435 Citation: G.E. Shaw & Associates (ACT) Pty Ltd v Narayan [2014] FCA 435
Parties: G.E. SHAW & ASSOCIATES (ACT) PTY LTD (ACN 096 942 077; ABN 54 096 942 077) v ADI NARAYAN, AUSTRALISIA BOUTIQUE HOME DESIGN PTY LTD (ACN 136 399 061; ABN 136 399 061), PINAKIN RAMBHAI PATEL (& T/AS CONSTRUCTION SITE CLEANING SERVICES) (ABN 13 728 380 310), SANGITA BAHEN PATEL, UMESH WARAN PILLAY (& ALSO KNOWN AS SUMESH PILLAY) and SANGITA MANI PILLAY; PINAKIN RAMBHAI PATEL v ADI NARAYAN
File number: ACD 75 of 2012
Judge: FOSTER J
Date of judgment: 2 May 2014
Catchwords: AGENCY – whether a solicitor on the record in a proceeding continues to have ostensible authority to compromise claims made in that proceeding notwithstanding that his or her actual authority may have been qualified in some way unknown to the counter-party or its representatives
Legislation: Constitution, s 76(ii) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (Cth), s 9(3)
Cases cited: Crosby v Kelly (2012) 203 FCR 451 applied G E Dal Pont, Law of Agency (Butterworths, 2001)
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