NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Lewis v Nortex Pty Ltd (No 2) [2001] NSWSC 610 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity Division FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 3081/97 HEARING DATE(S) : 09/07/01 JUDGMENT DATE : 19 July 2001
Peter Lawrence Lewis (P) PARTIES : Lamru Pty Ltd (Applicant) Brian Raymond Silvia (Liquidator) JUDGMENT OF : Young CJ in Eq
J T Johnson (P) COUNSEL : S J Motbey (Applicant) P A Somerset (S) (Liquidator) Kemp Strang (P) SOLICITORS : Lyons & Lyons (Applicant) Abbott Tout (Liquidator) CATCHWORDS : PROCEDURE [575]- Costs- One party's conduct producing suspicious document- On balance of probabilities document genuine- Conduct good reason to deprive party of costs. LEGISLATION CITED : Supreme Court Act s 76 Supreme Court Rules Part 52A Bostock v Ramsey Urban Council [1900] 2 QB 616 CASES CITED : Harnett v Vise (1880) LR 5 ExD 307 Trenerry v Trenerry [1966] 2 NSWR 221 DECISION : See paras 21-23.
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION
YOUNG CJ in Eq
THURSDAY 19 JULY 2001
3081/97 - LEWIS v NORTEX PTY LTD (NO 2)
JUDGMENT
1 HIS HONOUR: On 22 June 2001 I gave judgment on five questions which had been ordered to be considered before the other issues in these proceedings. The five questions and their brief answers were as follows:
(1) Was the impugned document signed on 16 April 1991?
Answer "Yes".
(2) Does the impugned document have the effect of making Peter Lawrence Lewis the sole appointor of the Nortex Unit Trust?
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