NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Court of Appeal
CITATION: TOMKO v PALASTY [2007] NSWCA 258
HEARING DATE(S): 17/09/07
JUDGMENT DATE: 27 September 2007
JUDGMENT OF: Mason P at 1; Basten JA at 2; Einstein J at 21
DECISION: Appeal dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS: CONTRACT – construction of contract – identification of parties to loan contract – admissibility of evidence of post-contractual conduct in determining identity of contracting party – whether statements or conduct of one party constitute an admission as to the identity of the other party to the contract.
LEGISLATION CITED: Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)
ABB Engineering Construction Pty Ltd v Abigroup Contractors Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 665 Barrier Wharfs Ltd v W Scott Fell & Co Ltd (1908) 5 CLR 647 Brambles Holdings Limited v Bathurst City Council (2001) 53 NSWLR 153, [2001] NSWCA 61 B Seppelt & Sons Ltd v Commissioner for Main Roads (1975) 1 BPR 9147 Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1982) 149 CLR 337 El-Mir v Risk [2005] NSWCA 215 FAI Traders Insurance Co Ltd v Savoy Plaza Pty Ltd [1993] 2 VR 343 Film Bars Pty Ltd v Pacific Film Laboratories Pty Ltd (1979) 1 BPR 9251 Hide & Skin Trading Pty Ltd v Oceanic Meat Traders Ltd (1990) 20 NSWLR 310 CASES CITED: Howard Smith & Co Ltd v Varawa (1907) 5 CLR 68 Hudson Investment Group Pty Ltd v Australian Hardboards Ltd [2005] NSWCA 716 Independent Timber Importers (Aust) Pty Ltd v Mercantile Mutual Insurance Australia Ltd (2002) 12 ANZ Ins Cas 61-543 Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 All ER 98 John R Keith Pty Ltd v Multiplex Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 43 Maggbury Pty Limited v Hafele Australia Pty Limited (2001) 210 CLR 181 Magill v National Australia Bank Ltd (2001) Aust Contract R 90-131 Pethybridge v Stedikas Holdings Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 154 Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust v South Sydney City Council (2002) 186 ALR 289 Ryan v Textile Clothing & Footwear Union of Australia [1996] 2 VR 235 Walker v Andrew (2002) 20 ACLC 1476
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