NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Petek v Goldman & 3 Ors [2000] NSWSC 409 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20110/96 HEARING DATE(S) : 8 February 2000 10 April 2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 18 May 2000
Kenneth Paul Petek (Plaintiff) Barry Goldman (First Defendant)
Naga Pty Limited PARTIES : (Second Defendant)
Warren Wilson (Third Defendant)
Goodacre Development Pty Limited (Fourth Defendant) JUDGMENT OF : Master Harrison
Mr L V Gyles (Plaintiff)
Mr Catts (First Defendant) COUNSEL : Mr W Hodgekiss (Second & Third Defendant)
Ms E A Collins (Fourth Defendant) Conway Maccallum (Plaintiff)
The Law Partnership (First Defendant) SOLICITORS : D C Balog & Associates (Second & Third Defendants)
Clayton Utz (Fourth Defendant) CATCHWORDS : Extension of time to serve statement of claim Supreme Court Act - s 81 LEGISLATION CITED : Supreme Court Rules Trade Practices Act - s 52 Fair Trading Act - s 42 Franklin House Ltd v ANI Corporation Ltd & Ors (NSWSC, unreported 7 November 1994) CASES CITED : Baker v Wingo (1972) 407 US 514 at 532 Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541; 129 ALR 1 DECISION : See para 19
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