Carmen & Carmen
[2025] FedCFamC1A 128
Para 19
…rguments had been understood and accepted. As Santow JA (with whom Meagher and Beazley JJA agreed) explained in Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 (at [129]) it is necessary that the primary judge “‘enter into’ the issues canvassed and explain why one case is preferred over another”. (Citations omitted)…
Rashid & Olaran
[2025] FedCFamC1A 119
Para 17
…: Soulemezis (at 279) per McHugh JA. As Santow JA (with whom Meagher and Beazley JJA agreed) explained in Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 (at [129]) it is necessary that the primary judge “‘enter into’ the issues canvassed and explain why one case is preferred over another”; see also Flannery v Halifax Estate Agen…
Aritza & Aritza
[2025] FedCFamC1A 108
Para 42
…rguments had been understood and accepted. As Santow JA (with whom Meagher and Beazley JJA agreed) explained in Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 (at [129]) it is necessary that the primary judge “‘enter into’ the issues canvassed and explain why one case is preferred over another”. (Citations omitted)…
Pemberton v Woolstar Pty Limited
[2025] NSWPICPD 34
Para 2
…ed: Soulemezis (at 279) per McHugh JA. As Santow JA (with whom Meagher and Beazley JJA agreed) explained in Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 (at [129]) it is necessary that the primary judge ‘‘enter into’ the issues canvassed and explain why one case is preferred over another’; see also Flannery v Halifax Estate Ag…
Redpath v State of New South Wales (Healthshare NSW)
[2025] NSWPICPD 29
Para 1
….[61] I accept that this involved appealable error. Ground No. 1 is made out. [59] [2009] NSWCA 110 ( Pollard ), [59]. [60] [2003] NSWCA 81, [129]. [61] See Gerlach v Clifton Bricks Pty Ltd [2002] HCA 22; 209 CLR 478, [6]–[7].…
State of New South Wales (Southern NSW Pathology Service) v Wu
[2024] NSWPICPD 76
Para 7
…Soulemezis (at 279) per McHugh JA. As Santow JA (with whom Meagher and Beazley JJA agreed) explained in Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 (at [129]) it is necessary that the primary judge ‘ ‘enter into’ the issues canvassed and explain why one case is preferred over another’; see also Flannery v Halifax Estate Agenc…
Kipoi Holdings Mauritius Limited v Robert Michael Kirman and Robert Conry Brauer as joint and several administrators of Tiger Resources Limited (Subject to Deed of Company Arrangement) [No 4]
[2024] WASCA 145
…1996] 1 Qd R 26 Jago v District Court (NSW) [1989] HCA 46; (1989) 168 CLR 23 Jai Berham v Kedar Nath Marwari (1922) LR 49 Ind App 351 Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 Joyce v Anderson [2020] WASCA 48; (2020) 91 MVR 334 Kipoi Holdings Mauritius Ltd v Kirman as deed administrator of Tiger Resources Ltd (Subject to De…
Pilbrow v University of Melbourne
[2024] FCA 1140
Para 11
…he primary judge “‘enter into’ the issues canvassed and explain why one case is preferred over another”. See Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 at [129] (Santow JA, Meagher and Beazley JJA agreeing). 111As Samuels JA said in Mifsud v Campbell (1991) 21 NSWLR 725 at 728, “… failure to refer to some of the evidence doe…
Dando & Attard
[2024] FedCFamC1A 158
Para 1
…ood and accepted: Soulemezis (at 279) per McHugh JA. As Santow JA (with whom Meagher and Beazley JJA agreed) explained in Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 (at [129]) it is necessary that the primary judge “ ‘enter into’ the issues canvassed and explain why one case is preferred over another”; see also Flannery v Ha…
Trafford & Cuthbert
[2024] FedCFamC1A 144
Para 10
…arguments had been understood and accepted. As Santow JA (with whom Meagher and Beazley JJA agreed) explained in Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 (at [129]) it is necessary that the primary judge “‘enter into’ the issues canvassed and explain why one case is preferred over another”. (Citations omitted)…
Kellerman & Kellerman
[2024] FedCFamC1A 126
Para 33
…ch their arguments had been understood and accepted. As Santow JA (with whom Meagher and Beazley JJA agreed) explained in Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 (at [129]) it is necessary that the primary judge “ ‘enter into’ the issues canvassed and explain why one case is preferred over another”. (Citations omitted)…
Invisalign Australia Pty Ltd v SmileDirectClub LLC
[2024] FCAFC 46
Para 31
…essary that the primary judge “‘enter into’ the issues canvassed and explain why one case is preferred over another”. See Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 at [129] (Santow JA, Meagher and Beazley JJA agreeing). In our view, by not dealing with Invisalign’s serious and substantial submissions about why no weight sho…
BGV v Waverley Council
[2024] NSWPICPD 2
Para 5
…nderstood and accepted: Soulemezis (at 279) per McHugh JA. As Santow JA (with whom Meagher and Beazley JJA agreed) explained in Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 (at [129]) it is necessary that the primary judge ‘enter into’ the issues canvassed and explain why one case is preferred over another …”.[138] [138] Polla…
Woolstar Pty Ltd v Viapiana
[2023] NSWPICPD 74
Para 3
…nderstood and accepted: Soulemezis (at 279) per McHugh JA. As Santow JA (with whom Meagher and Beazley JJA agreed) explained in Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 (at [129]) it is necessary that the primary judge ‘enter into’ the issues canvassed and explain why one case is preferred over another …”.[47] [47] [2009]…
Hendrix v Accuro Homecare Pty Ltd
[2023] NSWPICPD 48
Para 2
…nderstood and accepted: Soulemezis (at 279) per McHugh JA. As Santow JA (with whom Meagher and Beazley JJA agreed) explained in Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 (at [129]) it is necessary that the primary judge ‘ ‘enter into’ the issues canvassed and explain why one case is preferred over another’; see also Flanner…
Aitken & Aitken
[2023] FedCFamC1A 69
Para 7
…being required to “ʻenter into’ the issues canvassed and explain why one case is preferred over the other ” (emphasis added): Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 at [129] and Bennett and Bennett (1991) FLC 92-191 at 78,266.…
City of Ryde v Clarke
[2023] NSWPICPD 22
Para 7
…nderstood and accepted: Soulemezis (at 279) per McHugh JA. As Santow JA (with whom Meagher and Beazley JJA agreed) explained in Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 (at [129]) it is necessary that the primary judge ‘ ‘enter into’ the issues canvassed and explain why one case is preferred over another’; see also Flanner…
Ervin & Allum
[2022] FedCFamC1A 172
Para 10
…mary judge being required to “‘enter into’ the issues canvassed and explain why one case is preferred over the other”.[8] [8] Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 at [129] (Santow JA with Meagher and Beazley JJA agreeing). See also Bennett and Bennett (1991) FLC 92-191 at 78,266.…
Bonnett & Bonnett
[2021] FedCFamC1A 95
Para 19
…imary judge being required to “ʻenter into’ the issues canvassed and explain why one case is preferred over the other”.[2] [2] Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 at [129]. See Bennett and Bennett (1991) FLC 92-191 at 78,266.…
Return to Work Corporation of South Australia v Sunman
[2021] SASCA 125
Para 8
…Tadgell J agreeing at 20). [44] See Flannery v Halifax Estate Agencies Ltd [2000] 1 WLR 377 at 382; [2000] 1 All ER 373 at 378; Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 at [131] per Santow JA (Meagher JA and Beazley JA agreeing at [1], [2]); Mount Lawley Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission (2004) 29 WAR 273 at…
TechnologyOne Limited v Roohizadegan
[2021] FCAFC 137
…Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd v Bowling (1976) 51 ALJR 235 Goodrich Aerospace Pty Limited v Arsic (2006) 66 NSWLR 186 Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 Mifsud v Campbell (1991) 21 NSWLR 725 Mount Bruce Mining Pty Limited v Wright Prospecting Pty Limited (2015) 256 CLR 104 Moylan v Nutrasweet Co [2000] NSWCA 337 Nagamuthu…
Sales Pond Pty Ltd v Telegate Pty Ltd
[2020] NSWSC 1579
Para 129
…McHugh JA. It was necessary that he “ ‘enter into’ the issues canvassed and explain why one case was preferred over another”: Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 at [129] per Santow JA (with whom Meagher and Beazley JJA agreed).…
Ausgrid v Parasiliti
[2020] NSWWCCPD 51
Para 10
…stood and accepted: Soulemezis (at 279) per McHugh JA. As Santow JA (with whom Meagher and Beazley JJA agreed) explained in Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 (at [129]) it is necessary that the primary judge ‘enter into’ the issues canvassed and explain why one case is preferred over another; see also Flannery v Hal…
Fairfield City Council v McBride
[2019] NSWWCCPD 28
Para 1
…d accepted: Soulemezis (at 279) per McHugh JA. As Santow JA (with whom Meagher and Beazley JJA agreed) explained in Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 (at [129]) it is necessary that the primary judge ‘enter into’ the issues canvassed and explain why one case is preferred over another; see also Flannery v Halifax Est…
Trebiano and Trebiano
[2019] FamCAFC 16
Para 9
…and accepted: Soulemezis (at 279) per McHugh JA. As Santow JA (with whom Meagher and Beazley JJA agreed) explained in Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 (at [129]) it is necessary that the primary judge “ ‘enter into’ the issues canvassed and explain why one case is preferred over another”; see also Flannery v Halifa…
WELLEN & WELLEN
[2018] FamCAFC 192
Para 4
…ood and accepted: Soulemezis (at 279) per McHugh JA. As Santow JA (with whom Meagher and Beazley JJA agreed) explained in Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 (at [129]) it is necessary that the primary judge “ ‘enter into’ the issues canvassed and explain why one case is preferred over another”; see also Flannery v Ha…
Bevan v Coolahan
[2018] NSWDC 410
Para 383
…h Wales employees. However, applying the average wage of full time workers to a person such as the plaintiff may be inappropriate ( Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 at [194]) as would be an assumption that a person with such an employment record would be employed for the rest of her life. Such a finding was conside…
DL v The Queen
[2018] HCA 26
Para 4
…J and Tadgell J agreeing at 20). [72]See Flannery v Halifax Estate Agencies Ltd [2000] 1 WLR 377 at 382; [2000] 1 All ER 373 at 378; Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 at [131] per Santow JA (Meagher JA and Beazley JA agreeing at [1], [2]); Mount Lawley Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission (2004) 29 WAR…
Sargent & Selwyn
[2017] FamCAFC 228
Para 3
…en understood and accepted: Soulemezis (at 279) per McHugh JA. As Santow JA (with whom Meagher and Beazley JJA agreed) explained in Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 (at [129]) it is necessary that the primary judge “‘enter into’ the issues canvassed and explain why one case is preferred over another”; see also Flan…
Barrott v RTC Facilities Maintenance Pty Ltd
[2015] NSWWCCPD 21
Para 2
…accepted: Soulemezis (at 279) per McHugh JA. As Santow JA (with whom Meagher and Beazley JJA agreed) explained in Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 (at [129]) it is necessary that the primary judge ‘‘enter into’ the issues canvassed and explain why one case is preferred over another’; see also Flannery v Halifax Est…
State of New South Wales v Colm McGuirk
[2015] NSWLC 1
Para 18
…In Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 at [105], Santow JA with Meagher and Beazley JJA agreeing described the negligence of a pedestrian in the following terms, “...[the] actions involved a clear departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable pedestrian to take care of his or her own safety”.…
Dadson v Lance Ryan Electrical Pty Ltd
[2014] QDC 261
Para 1
…e decision. The magistrate did not, as I have said, rely on “bald conclusionary statements” (to adopt the words of Santos JA in Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 at para [64]). His Honour gave a very considered analysis of the competing evidence and adequately explained his reasons for accepting the respondent’s cas…
Transgrid v Pryor
[2014] NSWWCCPD 50
Para 3
…re to engage with or enter into the contested issues; see Maylan v The Nutrasweet Company [2000] NSWCA 337 at [61]- [68], Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 at [128]- [131]. It too represents an insufficiency of reasons.”…
Fraser v Burswood Resort (Management) Ltd
[2014] WASCA 130
…12] WADC 175 Gold Ribbon (Accountants) Pty Ltd (in liq) v Sheers [2006] QCA 335 Holloway v McFeeters [1956] HCA 25; (1956) 94 CLR 470 Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 Kuhl v Zürich Financial Services Australia [2011] HCA 11; (2011) 243 CLR 361 McGhee v National Coal Board [1972] 1 WLR 1 Minister for Immigration, Lo…
Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation v Barwon Health
[2014] FWCFB 2777
Para 129
…understood and accepted: Soulemezis (at 279) per McHugh JA. As Santow JA (with whom Meagher and Beazley JJA agreed) explained in Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 (at [129]) it is necessary that the primary judge ‘“enter into” the issues canvassed and explain why one case is preferred over another’; see also Flanne…
Gray v Brimbank City Council
[2014] VSC 13
Para 129
…understood and accepted: Soulemezis (at 279) per McHugh JA. As Santow JA (with whom Meagher and Beazley JJA agreed) explained in Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 (at [129]) it is necessary that the primary judge ‘enter into the issues canvassed and explain why one case is preferred over another’; ……
Watson v Meyer
[2013] NSWCA 243
Para 1
…nter into the issues canvassed and to explain why one case is preferred over another (referring to what had been said by Santow JA in Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 at [129] and to Flannery v Halifax Estate Agencies Ltd t/as Colleys Professional Services [2000] 1 All ER 373 at pp 377-378). See also Basha v Vocati…
Davis v Swift
[2013] NSWDC 99
Para 1
…rgery in 2011. It is difficult to ascertain what kind of economic loss this entails. The figure of $240 a week is largely artificial: Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 at [194]. It is my view that the appropriate course to take is to award a lump sum for past economic loss of $10,000, on the basis that the plaintiff…
Aubrey Keith Murphy v Tony McMillan
[2012] NSWSC 180
Para 1
…it is necessary to determine whether the primary judge has canvassed the issues and explained why one case is preferred over another: Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81. Significantly, if an issue of credit is determined, explanation is required as to why a witness or witnesses are preferred to another or others: Pal…
Walfertan Processors Pty Limited v Upper Hunter Shire Council (No 4)
[2010] NSWLEC 108
Para 129
…understood and accepted: Soulemezis (at 279) per McHugh JA. As Santow JA (with whom Meagher and Beazley JJA agreed) explained in Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 (at [129]) it is necessary that the primary judge “ ‘enter into’ the issues canvassed and explain why one case is preferred over another”; see also Flann…
Village McEvoy Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Sydney (No 2)
[2010] NSWLEC 17
Para 129
…ood and accepted: Soulemezis (at 279) per McHugh JA. As Santow JA (with whom Meagher and Beazley JJA agreed) explained in Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 (at [129]) it is necessary that the primary judge “‘enter into’ the issues canvassed and explain why one case is preferred over another”; see also Flannery v Hal…
Basha v Vocational Capacity Centre Pty Ltd
[2009] NSWCA 409
…Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22, (2003) 214 CLR 118 House v The King [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499 Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 Khan v Polyzois [2006] NSWCA 59 New South Wales v Fahy [2007] HCA 20; (2007) 232 CLR 486 North Sydney Council v Lygon 302 Pty Ltd (1995) 87 LGERA 435 Rogers v Whittaker [1992] HCA 58; (19…
Zilio v Lane
[2009] NSWDC 226
…rrison v Melhem & Anor (No 1) [2006] NSWSC 1258 Harrison v Melhem & Anor (No 2) [2006] NSWSC 1293 Harrison v Melhem [2008] NSWCA 67 Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; (1959) 101 CLR 298 Knight v GIO (NSW) (New South Wales Court of Appeal, Kirby P, Priestley and Cole JJA, 13 April 1995, un…
Pollard v RRR Corporation Pty Ltd
[2009] NSWCA 110
…Hull v Thompson [2001] NSWCA 359 Hunter v Transport Accident Commission (2005) 43 MVR 130; [2005] VSCA 1 Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 Maviglia v Maviglia [1999] NSWCA 188 Meates v Attorney-General [1983] NZLR 308 Mifsud v Campbell (1991) 21 NSWLR 725 Moylan v Nutrasweet Co [2000] NSWCA 337 Najdovski v Crnojlov…
Majkic v Bonnano
[2008] NSWCA 253
…tical factual findings LEGISLATION CITED: Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) CATEGORY: Principal judgment CASES CITED: Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 Larson v Commissioner of Police [2004] NSWCA 126 PARTIES: Zelfko Majkic (Appellant) Roslyn Angela Bonanno (Respondent) FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40924/07 COUNSEL:…
Costa v The Public Trustee of NSW
[2008] NSWCA 223
…CLR 499 Imbree v McNeilly [2008] HCA 40 Jacob v Utah Construction and Engineering Pty Ltd [1966] HCA 67; 116 CLR 200 Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 Kouris v Prospector’s Motel Pty Ltd (1978) 19 ALR 343 Livingstone v Halvorsen (1979) 53 ALJR 50 Mickelberg v The Queen [1989] HCA 35; 167 CLR 259 Mifsud v Campbell (…
Kendirjian v Ayoub
[2008] NSWCA 194
…-731 Khan v Polyzois [2006] NSWCA 59 Hodgson v Crane [2002] NSWCA 276; (2002) 55 NSWLR 199 House v R [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499 Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles [2001] NSWCA 305; (2001) 52 NSWLR 705 Moran v McMahon (1983) 3 NSWLR 700 Precision Plastics Pty Ltd v Demir [19…
Dobler v Halverson
[2007] NSWCA 335
…v Waller [2005] SASC 155; (2005) SASR 378; Forbes v Selleys Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCA 149; Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118; Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81; Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705; Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs v Hamsher (1992) 35 FCR 359…
Elite Protective Personnel Pty Ltd v Salmon
[2007] NSWCA 322
…(1936) 55 CLR 499 W Jeffreys Holdings Pty Ltd v Appleyard and Associates (1990) 10 BCL 298 Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 Jones v Bradley (No 2) [2003] NSWCA 258 Joslyn v Berryman [2003] HCA 34; (2003) 214 CLR 552 Kalls Enterprises Pty Ltd (In LIquidation) & Ors v Baloglow & Anor (No 3) [2007] NSWCA 298 Leichhar…
Ellis, Executor of the Estate of Paul Steven Cotton (Dec) v The State of South Australia
[2006] WASC 270
…6] EWHC 1447 Insurance Commissioner v Joyce (1948) 77 CLR 39 John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson [2000] HCA 36; (2000) 203 CLR 503 Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 Jongen v CSR Ltd (1992) A Torts Rep 81‑192 Joslyn v Berryman [2003] HCA 34; (2003) 214 CLR 552 Judd v Amaca Pty Ltd (No 2) (2003) 25 NSWCCR 488 Margolis v…