NSW Caselaw
Reported Decision : 60 NSWLR 436
New South Wales Court of Appeal
CITATION : Ross v Internet Wines Pty Ltd & Ors [2004] NSWCA 195 HEARING DATE(S) : 17 December 2003 and subsequent written submissions JUDGMENT DATE : 21 June 2004
JUDGMENT OF : Spigelman CJ at 1; Giles JA at 2; McColl JA at 111 DECISION : (1) Appeal allowed in part; (2) Set aside orders 3, 4 and 5 made on 20 August 2003; (3) No order as to the costs of the appeal.
CATCHWORDS : Orders for disclosure by affidavit of assets and funds removed from bank account - whether basis in proceedings or sufficient evidence warranting making orders - procedure described in Bax Global (Australia) Pty Ltd v Evans (1999) 47 NSWLR 538 followed - affidavit to be delivered to judge with notice of motion claiming privilege against self-incrimination - whether procedure infringed privilege - procedure disapproved. D. Accident Insurance Mutual Holding Ltd v McFadden (1993) 31 NSWLR 412; AMP General Insurance Ltd v Prasad [1999] NSWSC 349; Bax Global (Australia) Pty Ltd v Evans (1999) 47 NSWLR 538; Counsel v Hitchcock (1892) 142 US 547; Duffy v Super Centre Development Corporation Ltd (1967) NSWR 382; CASES CITED : Griffin v Sogelease Australia Ltd [2003] NSWCA 158; HPM Industries Pty Ltd v Graham (Young CJ in Eq, 17 July 1996, unreported); National Australia Bank Ltd v Rusu (Hamilton J, 6 April 1998, unreported); Patterson v BTR Engineering (Aust) Ltd (1989) 18 NSWLR 319; Reid v Howard (1995) 184 CLR 1; Rio Tinto Zinc Corporation v Westinghouse Electric Corporation (1978) AC 547; Sorby v The Commonwealth (1983) 152 CLR 281. David Martin Ross - Appellant Internet Wines Pty Ltd - First Respondent Bruce McIntosh - Second respondent PARTIES : Vera McIntosh - Third Respondent Palm Beach Cellars & Food Supplies Pty Ltd - Fourth Respondent Castlemoon Pty Ltd - Fifth Respondent John Flowers - Sixth Respondent FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40725/03 COUNSEL : M L D Einfeld QC & J Horowitz - Appellant P T Russell - First to Fifth Respondents Verekers - Appellant SOLICITORS : Cridlands - First to Fifth Respondents Bertock & Associates - Sixth Respondent (submitting)
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