NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Clayton Robert Croker v Hutchinson 3G Australia Pty Limited & Anor [2005] NSWSC 733
HEARING DATE(S) : 22 July 2005
JUDGMENT DATE : 28 July 2005
Common Law Division JURISDICTION : Administrative Law List
JUDGMENT OF : Associate Justice Malpass at 1
DECISION : The applications fail; the notices of motion are dismissed; the plaintiff is to pay the costs of the notices of motion; the matters are referred to the Prothonotary for consideration.
CATCHWORDS : Review of decision of Registrar - security for costs - purported address given contrary to rules - restriction on power where mis-statement is made without intention to deceive - inherent jurisdiction.
Consumer Trader & Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001, ss65, 67 LEGISLATION CITED : Supreme Court Rules 1970, Pt 53, r2
CASES CITED : Croker v Sydney Institute of TAFE [2003] FCA 942
Clayton Robert Croker (Plaintiff) PARTIES : Hutchinson 3G Australia Pty Limited (First Defendant) NEC Australia Pty Limited (Second Defendant)
FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 30008/05; 30012/05
In person (Plaintiff) COUNSEL : Ms C Mullins (Solicitor) (First Defendant)
N/A (Plaintiff) SOLICITORS : Truman Hoyle Lawyers (First Defendant) Middletons Lawyers (Second Defendant)
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Supreme Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 30008/05; 30012/05
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER : Assistant Registrar Howe
- 6 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST
Associate Justice Malpass
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