NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Court of Appeal
CITATION : Avora v Maxwell [2002] NSWCA 346 revised - 23/12/2002 FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40669/01 HEARING DATE(S) : 13 September 2002 JUDGMENT DATE : 20 December 2002
Avora Pty Limited and Tony Rahme v PARTIES : John William Maxwell t/as L J Hooker Richmond and Super Jet Sprays Pty Limited t/as Ron Smith Planning Services and Olivia Pearl Nydegger JUDGMENT OF : Meagher JA at 1; Handley JA at 2; Giles JA at 39
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT DC 1371/99 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Certoma DCJ JUDICIAL OFFICER :
Appellants/First Claimant - P Hallan/D Hogan-Doran COUNSEL : Respondent 1/Opponent - R Sheldon Respondent 2/Opponent - R Bellamy Respondent 3/Second Cross-Claimant - A McInness Appellants - Uther Webster & Evans SOLICITORS : Respondent 1 - Murray Stewart & Fogarty Solicitors Respondent 2 - Gordon Robilliard Plowman Merton Respondent 3 - Kenneth Harrison CATCHWORDS : APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - fresh evidence - due diligence - no question of principle - MISLEADING AND DECEPTIVE CONDUCT - s 42 Fair Trading Act - - no question of principle Trade Practices Act (1974) Cth LEGISLATION CITED : Fair Trading Act (1987) NSW Supreme Court Act (1970) NSW Western Australia v Wardley Australia Pty Ltd (1992) 175 CLR 514 CASES CITED: Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Quade (1991) 178 CLR 134 McDonald v McDonald (1965) 113 CLR 529 DECISION : Appeal dismissed. Appellants must pay the costs of all respondents
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