NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Collins Thomson v Clayton [2002] NSWSC 366 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 1666/01 HEARING DATE(S) : 9 April 2002 JUDGMENT DATE : 9 April 2002
PARTIES : Collins Thomson Pty Ltd (in liq) (P) Stephen James Clayton (D) JUDGMENT OF : Austin J
COUNSEL : Mr P O'Loughlin (P) Mr W Muddle (D) SOLICITORS : Colin Biggers & Paisley (P) Potts Latimer (D) CATCHWORDS : EVIDENCE - 'without prejudice' privilege - whether solicitor's letter to other party's solicitor was in connection with an attempt to negotiate settlement, or merely a statement of position EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE - whether plaintiff's liquidator can give such evidence - whether independence of expert is a pre-requisite to admissibility LEGISLATION CITED : Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ss 76, 79, 131 Fagenblat v Feingold Partners Pty Limited [2001] VSC 454 GPI Leisure Corporation (in liq) v Yuill (1987) 42 NSWLR 225 Liverpool Roman Catholic Arch Diocesan Trustees Inc v Goldberg (No. 3) [2001] 1 WLR 2337 CASES CITED : Makita (Australia) Pty Limited v Sprowles [2001] NSWCA 305 National Justice v Prudential Insurance (The "Ikarian Reefer") [1993] 2 Lloyd's Reports 68 Nodnara Pty Limited v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1997) 140 FLR 336. Whitehouse v Jordan [1981] 1 WLR 246 DECISION : 'Without prejudice' letter held admissible; plaintiff liquidator's expert opinion evidence held admissible
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION
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