NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Court of Appeal
CITATION : FORD v NAGLE & ORS [2004] NSWCA 33 HEARING DATE(S) : 9 February 2004 JUDGMENT DATE : 26 February 2004
JUDGMENT OF : Mason P at 1; Handley JA at 34; McColl JA at 35 DECISION : Appeal dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS : SUMMARY DISMISSAL - evidentiary deficiency - whether commencement of proceedings an abuse of process or civil conspiracy - whether triable issue - whether evidentiary foundations required before allegations raised - relevance of position where fraud is alleged - one of several defendants seeking summary dismissal (ND) PARTIES : Christopher FORD v Peter Richard NAGLE & 2 Ors FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40110/03 Appellant: C E Adamson SC/ T Jowett COUNSEL : 1st Respondent: D E Baran 2nd and 3rd Respondents: Submitting appearance Appellant: Phillips Fox SOLICITORS : 1st Respondent: Barclay Benson 2nd Respondent: Etheringtons 3rd Respondent: Bartier Perry
LOWER COURT District Court JURISDICTION : LOWER COURT DC 6487/99 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Walmsley DCJ JUDICIAL OFFICER :
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL CA 40110/03 DC 6487/99
MASON P HANDLEY JA McCOLL JA
Thursday 26 February 2003 Christopher FORD v Peter Richard NAGLE
BACKGROUND The appellant is a solicitor who, together with the second and third respondents, has been sued in the District Court for damages for conspiracy to injure Mr Nagle (the first respondent), who was the member for Auburn in the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales.
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