NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Pham v Doan [2005] NSWSC 201
HEARING DATE(S) : 13/07/04, 14/07/04, 15/07/04, 16/07/04, 28/07/04, 16/11/04, 18/11/04, 22/11/04, 23/11/04, 24/11/04 Written submissions: 06/12/04, 15/12/04
JUDGMENT DATE : 16 March 2005
JURISDICTION : Equity Division
JUDGMENT OF : Barrett J
DECISION : Partnership shown to have been formed. Formation of partnership illegal by statute. Proceedings to be re-listed for further submissions.
CATCHWORDS : PARTNERSHIP - generally - whether partnership formed - CONTRACTS - illegal and void contracts - whether partnership in "business of a pharmacist" between pharmacist and non-pharmacist prohibited by Pharmacy Act 1964 - whether composite business should be viewed as made up of core elements central to "business of a pharmacist" and other elements - effect of statutory prohibition on formation of partnership
Partnership Act 1892, s.1 LEGISLATION CITED : Pharmacy Act 1964, ss.3, 25
Archbolds (Freightage) Ltd v Spanglett Ltd [1961] 1 QB 374 Chappuis v Filo (1990) 19 NSWLR 490 Fitzgerald v F J Leonhardt Pty Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 215 Nelson v Nelson (1995) 184 CLR 538 CASES CITED : Royal Bank of Canada v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1972] Ch 665 St John Shipping Corporation v Joseph Rank Ltd [1957] 1 QB 267 Yango Pastoral Co Pty Ltd v First Chicago Australia Ltd (1978) 139 CLR 410 Ybasco v Daka [1948] 51 WALR 22
Stephen Pham - Plaintiff PARTIES : Peter Doan - Defendant
FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 2753/03
Mr G.P. McNally - Plaintiff COUNSEL : Mr P.B. Walsh - Defendant
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