NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : OzEcom & Anor v Hudson Investment Group & Ors [2007] NSWSC 1441
HEARING DATE(S) : 31 October 2007
JUDGMENT DATE : 13 December 2007
JUDGMENT OF : McDougall J at 1
DECISION : See paragraph 100 of the judgment.
CATCHWORDS : PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Exercise of power to recall or amend reasons – Orders to give effect to reasons have not been entered. - COSTS – of claims and of cross-claims for contribution or indemnity – no question of principle.
LEGISLATION CITED : Trade Practices Act 1974
Commercial Union Assurance Company of Australia Ltd v Ferrcom Pty Ltd (1991) 22 NSWLR 389 Enkelmann v Glissan (1982) 2 BPR 9640 Frank Davies Pty Ltd v Container Haulage Group Pty Ltd (No2) (1989) 98 FLR 324 Gould v Vaggelas (1985) 157 CLR 215 CASES CITED : Leichhardt Municipal Council v Green [2004] NSWCA 341 McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission [1951] 84 CLR 377 Segenhoe Ltd v Akins (1990) 29 NSWLR 569 SMEC Testing Services Pty Ltd v Campbelltown City Council [2000] NSWCA 323 Smith v Noss [2006] NSWCA 37 Wentworth v Rogers [2002] NSWSC 921
OzEcom Limited (In Liquidation) (First Plaintiff) Andrew Hugh Jenner Wiley (Second Plaintiff) Hudson Investment Group Limited (First Defendant) PARTIES : Hudson Securities Pty Limited (Second Defendant) Vincent See Yin Tan (Third Defendant) David Sutton (First Cross Defendant to the Fourth Cross Claim) Bruce McLeod (Second Defendant to Fourth Cross Claim)
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