NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Licardy v Solarsigns Pty Limited [2009] NSWSC 854
HEARING DATE(S) : 3, 4, 5, 6, 21 August 2009
JUDGMENT DATE : 1 September 2009
JURISDICTION : Equity Division
JUDGMENT OF : Hamilton AJ
DECISION : Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed
CATCHWORDS : TORTS [219] Trover and detinue – Demand and refusal – Sufficiency of demand
LEGISLATION CITED : Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) Fair Trading Act 1987
CATEGORY : Principal judgment
Australian Provincial Assurance Co Ltd v Coroneo (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 700 Baldwin v Cole (1704) 6 Mod Rep 212; 87 ER 964 Clayton v Le Roy [1911] 2 KB 1031 Enkelmann v Glissan (1982) 2 BPR 9,640 Fitzgerald v Kellion Estates Pty Limited (1977) 2 BPR 9,181 CASES CITED : Flowfill Packaging Machines Pty Limited v Fytore Pty Limited (1993) Aust Torts Reports 81-244 Frank Davies Pty Ltd v Container Haulage Group Pty Ltd (1989) NSW ConvR 55-084 Johnson Matthey (Aust) Ltd v Dascorp Pty Limited (2003) 9 VR 171 Lloyd v Osborne (1899) 20 LR (NSW) L 190 OzEcom v Hudson Investment Group [2007] NSWSC 1441 Spackman v Foster (1883) 11 QB 99
TEXTS CITED : Fleming on Torts (9th ed, 1998) Roscoe's Evidence in Civil Actions (20th ed, 1934)
Kylie Amber Licardy (plaintiff) Solarsigns Pty Limited (first defendant) PARTIES : Visual FX Creative Pty Limited (second defendant) Andrew Hatzigiannis (third defendant) John Hatzigiannis (fourth 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