Actions
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Statutory Material Cited
0
-
Mandie v Memart Nominees Pty Ltd
[2016] VSCA 4
Citation 1
(Para 24)
…ding Solutions Pty Ltd v Blanalko Pty Ltd [2013] VSCA 158 (recently applied in Feldman v Frontlink Pty Ltd [2014] VSCA 27 at [24] and Mandie v Memart [2016] VSCA 4 at [44]-[48]), the Court of Appeal distilled the test to be applied when determining whether to give summary judgment pursuant to s63.…
-
Feldman v Frontlink Pty Ltd
[2014] VSCA 27
Citation 2
(Para 24)
…5 In Lysaght Building Solutions Pty Ltd v Blanalko Pty Ltd [2013] VSCA 158 (recently applied in Feldman v Frontlink Pty Ltd [2014] VSCA 27 at [24] and Mandie v Memart [2016] VSCA 4 at [44]-[48]), the Court of Appeal distilled the test to be applied when determining whether to give summary judgment pursuant to s63…
-
Lysaght Building Solutions Pty Ltd v Blanalko Pty Ltd
[2013] VSCA 158
Citation 3
…5 In Lysaght Building Solutions Pty Ltd v Blanalko Pty Ltd [2013] VSCA 158 (recently applied in Feldman v Frontlink Pty Ltd [2014] VSCA 27 at [24] and Mandie v Memart [2016] VSCA 4 at [44]-[48]), the Court of Appeal distilled the test to be applied when determining whether to give summary judgment pursuant to s63.…
-
Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd
[2004] HCA 52
Citation 4
…19 Turning finally to the non est factum defence, the plaintiff relies on the decision of the High Court in Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2004) 219 CLR 165 at [57] in support of the submission that: “When a party executes a document which they intend to have some legal effect, but they do not take the trouble to understan…
-
Petelin v Cullen
[1975] HCA 24
Citation 5
…if the defendant was given sufficient notice of the contents of the contract. Further, the defendant relied on the decision of the High Court in Petelin v Cullen (1975) 132 CLR 355 at [12] for the proposition that a defence of non est factum is established if the defendant can show that she signed the document in the bel…
-
Petersen v Moloney
[1951] HCA 57
Citation 6
…16 Fourth, the plaintiffs’ reliance on the decision of the High Court in Petersen v Moloney (1951) 84 CLR 91 (at p94-5) is misplaced. It essentially stands for the proposition that the designation of “agent” in respect of the sale of property does not necessarily create any authority to do anything which will affec…