Legal Research
Cases
Mannigel v Hewlett Phelps

Mannigel v Hewlett Phelps

Case [1991] NSWCA 186 12 June 1991

Civil Procedure

Negligence & Tort

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: MANNIGEL v HEWLETT PHELPS [1991] NSWCA 186
Decision date: 12 June 1991

See Attachment (PDF)

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Mannigel v Hewlett Phelps

Sign in free to access the full text

Details

AGLC: Mannigel v Hewlett Phelps [1991] NSWCA 186
Case: [1991] NSWCA 186
Decision Date: 12 June 1991

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Mannigel v Hewlett Phelps* [1991] NSWCA 186, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered a dispute between the appellant, Mannigel, and the respondent, Hewlett Phelps. The precise nature of the dispute is not detailed in the provided text, but it proceeded to the Court of Appeal for determination.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was the interpretation and application of certain contractual provisions or legal principles relevant to the dispute between the parties. The court was required to ascertain the rights and obligations of Mannigel and Hewlett Phelps in relation to the matter under appeal.

The court's reasoning and the legal principles applied would have involved an analysis of the relevant evidence and applicable law to resolve the identified legal issues. The judgment would have articulated the court's findings on these matters, leading to a determination of the appeal.

The provided text does not contain information regarding the final orders or outcome of the appeal.

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.

Citations

22

AGLC Citation

Mannigel v Hewlett Phelps [1991] NSWCA 186

Most Recent Citation

Boensch v City of Parramatta Council [2020] NSWLEC 163

Cases citing this decision · 22 of 22 shown

Papoutsakis v Tsiakis
[2025] NSWSC 35

…emar v Industrial Commission of NSW (1988) 12 NSWLR 45 at 55–56 per Kirby P (with whom Clarke JA agreed); Mannigel v Hewlett Phelps [1991] NSWCA 186 at 2 per Handley JA (with whom Meagher JA agreed and Kirby P agreed “generally”); Arnoya Holdings Pty Ltd v Metway Leasing Ltd [1999] NSWCA 120 at [16] per Sheller JA…
Papoutsakis v Scanlon
[2024] NSWSC 562

…n Daemar v Industrial Commission of NSW (1988) 12 NSWLR 45 at 55-56 per Kirby P (with whom Clarke JA agreed); Mannigel v Hewlett Phelps [1991] NSWCA 186 at 2 per Handley JA (with whom Meagher JA agreed and Kirby P agreed “ generally ”); Arnoya Holdings Pty Ltd v Metway Leasing Limited [1999] NSWCA 120 at [16] per S…
Ryan v Optus Networks
[2024] NSWCA 82

…n Daemar v Industrial Commission of NSW (1988) 12 NSWLR 45 at 55-56 per Kirby P (with whom Clarke JA agreed); Mannigel v Hewlett Phelps [1991] NSWCA 186 at 2 per Handley JA (with whom Meagher JA agreed and Kirby P agreed ‘ generally’ ); Arnoya Holdings Pty Ltd v Metway Leasing Limited [1999] NSWCA 120 at [16] per S…
Papoutsakis v Tenbensel
[2024] TASSC 13

…v Fitzgerald and Browne [2017] TASSC 31 Faulkner v Bluett [1981] FCA 3, 1981 52 FLR 115 Macchia v Nilant [2001] FCA 7 Mannigel v Hewlett Phelps & Ors [1991] NSWCA 186 Pridmore v Magenta Nominees Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 815 Sands v State of South Australia [2015] SASCFC 36 Searle v Kearns and Ors [2001] NSWSC 679…
Official Trustee in Bankruptcy v Kent
[2023] FCA 1211 Para 2

…re of an indivisible cause of action will determine whether it is within the exception in s 116(2)(g) or not: see too Mannigel v Hewlett Phelps [1991] NSWCA 186 per Handley JA at 3, with whom Kirby P and Meagher JA agreed.…
Singh v Harrowell
[2023] NSWSC 420 Para 91

…to the plaintiff’s asserted interest in the Kingswood property. In support of this contention, the defendants rely on Mannigel v Hewlett Phelps [1991] NSWCA 186 (“ Mannigel ”).…
Lee v Lawfirst Pty Ltd
[2023] WASCA 59 Para 4

…was made to Manningel v Hewlett Phelps ;[35] Rana v Musolino ;[36] and Bryant v Commonwealth Bank of Australia .[37] [35] Manningel v Hewlett Phelps [1991] NSWCA 186. [36] Rana v Musolino [2010] FCA 476. [37] Bryant v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1997] FCA 582; (1997) 75 FCR 545.…
Batterham v Clayton Utz Partnership
[2022] FCA 360 Para 26

…In Mannigel v Hewlett Phelps and Ors [1991] NSWCA 186 ( Mannigel ), Handley JA with whom Kirby P, as his Honour then was, generally agreed and Meagher JA agreed, stated at 189: The meaning of the expression “personal injury or wrong” in s 60 subs 4(a) and equivalent: provisions is well settled. In Daemar v The Indu…
Boensch v City of Parramatta Council
[2020] NSWLEC 163 Para 81

…5 to 56. This adoption was also subsequently cited and applied by Handley JA (Kirby P and Meagher JA concurring) in Mannigel v Hewlett Phelps and Ors [1991] NSWCA 186 at page 2, line 34.…
Hankin and Anor and Nankervis
[2018] FCCA 2075 Para 6

…damages vested in the trustee in bankruptcy: [72]-[77] citing Bryant v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1997) 75 FCR 545; Mannigel v Hewlett Phelps [1991] NSWCA 186.…
Cristovao v Geoffrey DUTTON t/as DUTTON LEGAL [No 3]
[2017] WADC 140

…mmonwealth Bank of Australia (1997) 75 FCR 545 Cox v Journeaux [No 2] (1935) 52 CLR 713 Fletcher v Westpac [2012] WASCA 154 Mannigel v Hewlett Phelps [1991] NSWCA 186 Moss v Eaglestone [2011] NSWCA 404…
Watson v National Australia Bank
[2017] FCA 128 Para 9

…nce to his rights of property reflecting the test in Cox v Journeaux (No 2) (1935) 52 CLR 713 at 721, Dixon J); Mannigel v Hewlett Phelps [1991] NSWCA 186, Handley JA; Kirby P and Meagher JA agreeing; Samootin v Shea [2010] NSWCA 371 at [67] to [82], Campbell JA; Beazley JA and Hodgson JA agreeing; and Fletcher v W…
Sheehan v Brett-Young (No. 3)
[2016] VSC 39

…[29][1991] NSWCA 186.…
Zurich Australian Insurance Ltd v Ross Goodridge
[2014] NSWLC 20 Para 25

…rovides that a bankrupt may commence and maintain choses in action involving “any personal injury or wrong”. In Mannigel v Hewlett Phelps and Ors [1991] NSWCA 186, Handley JA cited with approval at the test formulated by Dixon J in Cox v Journeaux and Ors (No 2) (1935) 52 CLR 713 that, to fall within the ambit of s…
Kovarfi v BMT & Associates Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2014] NSWSC 100 Para 1

…her in the case of such mixed loss the whole cause of action vests in the trustee was considered by the Court of Appeal in Manningel v Hewlett Phelps [1991] NSWCA 186 Handley JA said:…
McMahon v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd (No 7)
[2013] NSWSC 933 Para 1

…Allsop P also referred (at [74]) to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Mannigel v Hewlett Phelps [1991] NSWCA 186, applied in Bryant . The principal claim in Mannigel was for professional negligence in connection with the purchase of land and the construction of a home on the land. It included a claim for loss…
Anthony Murdaca v Vincent Pizzinga
[2013] NSWSC 396 Para 1

…] [1935] HCA 48; (1935) 52 CLR 713; Daemar v Industrial Commission of New South Wales and Ors [No 1] (1988) 12 NSWLR 45 and Mannigel v Hewlett Phelps [1991] NSWCA 186.…
Fletcher v Westpac
[2012] WASCA 154

…5 CLR 124 Duckworth v Water Corporation [2012] WASC 30 Fletcher v Westpac [2011] WASC 277 Freeman v Joiner [2005] FCAFC 149 Mannigel v Hewlett Phelps [1991] NSWCA 186 Moss v Eaglestone [2011] NSWCA 404 Owens v Comlaw (No 62) Pty Ltd [2006] VSCA 151; (2006) 201 FLR 275 Re Lofthouse [2001] FCA 25; (2001) 107 FCR 151…
Moss v Eaglestone
[2011] NSWCA 404 Para 1

…ll Court of the Federal Court in Bryant v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1997) 75 FCR 545 at 554 and 564 and this Court in Mannigel v Hewlett Phelps [1991] NSWCA 186 (BC 9101907).…
Peter Tomson v Frank John Boitano
[2011] NSWSC 527 Para 1

…In Mannigel v Hewlett Phelps [1991] NSWCA 186, the Court determined that a plaintiff's claim against a former solicitor for professional negligence, damages for economic loss, and mental stress and strain was not a right to recover damages for pain and suffering in respect of any personal injury or wrong.…
Samootin v Shea
[2010] NSWCA 371

…. Daniels [1977] HCA 18; (1977) 51 ALJR 463 Mannigel v Hewlett Phelps [1991] NSWCA 186 Official Receiver in Bankruptcy v Schultz (1990) 170 CLR 306 Onus v Alcoa of Australia Ltd (1981) 149 CLR 27 Queensland v Whitlam (1974) 131 CLR 432 Rankin v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2005] FCA 1084; (2005) 220 ALR 723 Re B…
Sands v State of South Australia
[2012] SASC 159 Para 10

…ated by Dixon J in Cox with particular reference to the meaning of the words “without reference to his rights of property”. [7] Mannigel v Phelps [1991] NSWCA 186.…

View all 22 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No cases cited.

Legislation cited in this decision · 0

No legislation cited in this case.