Legal Research
Cases
Dover v NAFP (Financial Planning) Pty Ltd

Dover v NAFP (Financial Planning) Pty Ltd

Case [2022] VMC 3

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

This content is currently unavailable.

Details

AGLC: Dover v NAFP (Financial Planning) Pty Ltd [2022] VMC 3
Case: [2022] VMC 3
Decision Date: 7 February 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AI summary not yet generated for this case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Actions

Citations

Dover v NAFP (Financial Planning) Pty Ltd [2022] VMC 3

Cases Citing This Decision

Cases Cited

Statutory Material Cited

Jagatramka v Wollongong Coal Ltd [2021] NSWCA 61
Citation 1 (Para 1)

…annot fill gaps in the evidence, as distinct from enabling an available inference to be drawn more comfortably”: Jagatramka v Wollongong Coal Ltd [2021] NSWCA 61 at [49]; Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd (2011) 243 CLR 361 at [64]. See J D Heydon AC, Cross on Evidence , 12th edn, 2019, LexisNexis, Sy…
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Dover Financial Advisers Pty Ltd (No 3) [2021] FCA 170
Citation 2 (Para 1)

…ay particular attention to the judgment of O’Bryan J. in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Dover Financial Advisers Pty Ltd (No 3) [2021] FCA 170, addresses the issue in contention:-…
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Dover Financial Advisers Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 1932
Citation 3 (Para 1)

…eement is conveniently set out in the judgment of O’Bryan J. in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Dover Financial Advisers Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 1932:-…
Thorne v Kennedy [2017] HCA 49
Citation 4 (Para 1)

…a contract induced by or involving such conduct illegal[18]. [17] Fitzgerald v FJ Leonhart Pty Limited (1997) 189 CLR 215 [18]See SH Lock (Australia) Ltd v Kennedy (1988) 12 NSWLR 482 at 487, 494. See further the discussion at section 18.10 of Cheshire & Fifoots Law of Contract…
RHG Mortgage Limited v Rosario Ianni [2015] NSWCA 56
Citation 5 (Para 1)

…In RHG Mortgage Ltd v Ianni [2015] NSWCA 56 The court reiterated that the circumstances for drawing a Jones v Dunkel inference are found where an uncalled witness is a person presumably able to put the true complexion on the facts relied on by a party as the ground for any inference favourable to that party. The t…
Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd [2011] HCA 11
Citation 6 (Para 1)

…inference to be drawn more comfortably”: Jagatramka v Wollongong Coal Ltd [2021] NSWCA 61 at [49]; Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd (2011) 243 CLR 361 at [64]. See J D Heydon AC, Cross on Evidence , 12th edn, 2019, LexisNexis, Sydney at [1215].…
Fitzgerald v F J Leonhardt Pty Ltd [1997] HCA 17
Citation 7 (Para 1)

…g the contract ”. Support for that statement is said to come from the reasoning of McHugh and Gummow JJ in Fitzgerald v FJ Leonhart Pty Limited (1997) 189 CLR 215 at 226.…
Yango Pastoral Co Pty Ltd v First Chicago Australia Ltd [1978] HCA 42
Citation 8

…[16](1978) 139 CLR 410 at 413.…
Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 9
Citation 9 (Para 1)

…evidence in this proceeding. The Defendants invited me to draw a Jones and Dunkel[21] inference on account of McMaster’s unexplained absence. [21] Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 at 320…
Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8
Citation 10 (Para 1)

…is proceeding. The Defendants invited me to draw a Jones and Dunkel[21] inference on account of McMaster’s unexplained absence. [21] Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 at 320…
Neal v Ayers [1940] HCA 21
Citation 11 (Para 1)

…nduct went to the “substance of the transaction”, my determination in the preceding paragraph would remain unaffected. [26]See Neal v Ayers (1940) 63 CLR 524.…
McDonald v Dennys Lascelles Ltd [1933] HCA 25
Citation 12 (Para 1)

…In McDonald v Dennys Lascelles Ltd [1933] 48 CLR 457 at 476-477 it was held:…
Norton v Angus [1926] HCA 35
Citation 13 (Para 1)

…of establishing the illegal purposes rests on the party asserting the illegal purpose[20]. [19] Meehan v Jones (1982) 149 CLR 571 [20] Norton v Angus (1926) 38 CLR 523. See also Fitzgerald v FJ Leonhart Pty Limited (1997) 189 CLR 215…
Kennedy v SH Lock (Australia) Limited [1988] HCATrans 247
Citation 14 (Para 1)

…uced by or involving such conduct illegal[18]. [17] Fitzgerald v FJ Leonhart Pty Limited (1997) 189 CLR 215 [18]See SH Lock (Australia) Ltd v Kennedy (1988) 12 NSWLR 482 at 487, 494. See further the discussion at section 18.10 of Cheshire & Fifoots Law of Contract…
JL Holdings Pty Ltd v The State of Queensland [1997] FCA 507
Citation 15 (Para 1)

…non-compliance will cause the court to lean against construing the statute as imposing the further sanction of invalidation[22]. [22]Nelson v Nelson (1995) 184 CLR 538 at 613.…

AI Chat coming soon