NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Macquarie Bank Limited v Meinhardt (NSW) Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 1320
HEARING DATE(S) : 20/09/10, 21/09/10, 23/09/10, 30/09/10
JUDGMENT DATE : 16 November 2010
JURISDICTION : Equity Division Commercial List
JUDGMENT OF : Einstein J
DECISION : Reasons given for holding that plaintiff entitled to recover for certain categories of damage only. Parties to bring in short minutes of order reflecting the reasons.
CATCHWORDS : Damages - Whether plaintiff entitled to any and if so, what form of damages following determination upholding plaintiff's claims under Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)
LEGISLATION CITED : Civil Liability Act 2002 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)
CATEGORY : Principal judgment
CBD Investments Pty Ltd v ACE Ceramics Pty Ltd (1992) 10 BCL 437 CASES CITED : McPhee and Son (Aust) Pty Ltd v Technopolis Pty Ltd (1996) 13 BCL 189 Reinhold v New South Wales Lotteries Corporation (No 2) [2008] NSWSC 187 Shrimp v Landmark Operations Limited (2007) 163 FCR 510
TEXTS CITED : S Walmsley, A Abadee and B Zipser, Professional Liability in Australia (Thomson Lawbook Co, 2nd ed, 2007)
PARTIES : Macquarie Bank Limited (Plaintiff) Meinhardt (NSW) Pty Ltd
FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 2010/00059668
COUNSEL : Mr M Elliott (Plaintiff) Mr I Roberts (Defendant)
SOLICITORS : Minter Ellison (Plaintiff) DLA Phillips Fox (Defendant)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION COMERCIAL LIST
Einstein J
Tuesday 16 November 2010
2010/00059668 Macquarie Bank Limited v Meinhardt (NSW) Pty Ltd JUDGMENT – on damages 1 This judgment is a continuation of a judgment delivered on 30 September 2010 in these proceedings. Since that judgment the parties have been required to exchange submissions, and further submissions in reply, on the question of what damages, if any, the plaintiff is entitled to apropos the trade practices cause of action upon which it succeeded. Reserved rulings on evidence 2 During the hearing both parties put forward particular evidentiary objections to material sought to be placed into evidence through their opponent's affidavits. 3 A number of objections were initially dealt with in the usual way. 4 Early in the piece the parties agreed that efficiency dictated that certain classes of evidence be initially dealt with by way of a voir dire on the basis that the counsel would be permitted in final address to make submissions on which objections should be sustained and which rejected. 5 To my mind the only real question of any significance was concerned with the defendant's contention that certain sections of the plaintiffs evidence were objectionable by reason of the provisions in section 5 D of the Civil Liability Act 2002 which is in the following terms:
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