NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Nominal Defendant v Dana Australia Pty Limited [2002] NSWSC 1104 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law Division FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20526/00 HEARING DATE(S) : 17 October 2002 JUDGMENT DATE : 21 November 2002
PARTIES : The Nominal Defendant (Plaintiff) Dana Australia Pty Limited (Defendant) JUDGMENT OF : Studdert J
LOWER COURT Supreme Court JURISDICTION : LOWER COURT 20526/00 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Master Harrison JUDICIAL OFFICER :
COUNSEL : F.S. McAlary QC/D. Ronzani (Plaintiff/Respondent) I. Harrison SC (Defendant/Appellant) SOLICITORS : PricewaterhouseCoopers Legal (Plaintiff/Respondent) Connery & Partners (Defendant/Appellant) CATCHWORDS : Summary dismissal application relating to claim pleaded by Nominal Defendant - rights of Nominal Defendant following satisfaction of claim in respect of uninsured vehicle - whether subrogated to rights of owner of vehicle who would have been liable on claim but for satisfaction by Nominal Defendant - nature of burden on applicant for summary dismissal. LEGISLATION CITED : Motor Accidents Act Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act Dey v Victorian Railway Commissioners (1948-49) 78 CLR 62 General Steel Industries Inc. v Commissioner for Railways (1964) 112 CLR 125 CASES CITED : Webster & Anor v Lampard (1993) 177 CLR 598 Air Services Australia v Zarb (unreported, NSWCA, 26 August 1998) Castellain v Preston (1883) 11 QBD 380 Sydney Turf Club v Crowley (1971) 1 NSWLR 724 DECISION : See para 50
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