Refaat v Barry (Ruling No 3)

Case [2014] VCC 622

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

This content is currently unavailable.

Details

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AI summary not yet generated for this case.

Orders

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Full text does not contain this section.

Actions

Citations

Refaat v Barry (Ruling No 3) [2014] VCC 622

Most Recent Citation

Refaat v Barry [2015] VSCA 218

Cases Citing This Decision

Refaat v Barry [2015] VSCA 218
Citation 1 (Para 1)

…ed. The trial judge dealt with the issue on the papers, delivering reasons on 15 May 2014 (‘Ruling No 3’).[44] [44] Refaat v Barry (Ruling No. 3) [2014] VCC 622.…

Cases Cited

Statutory Material Cited

Smith v New South Wales Bar Association [1992] HCA 36
Citation 1

…Legislation Cited: Penalty Interest Rates Act 1983; Civil Procedure Act 2010 Cases Cited: Smith v New South Wales Bar Association (1992) 176 CLR 256…
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Quade [1992] HCATrans 226
Citation 2

…demonstrated that the evidence could not with reasonable diligence have been placed before the court at trial: Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Quade (1991) 178 CLR 134, 141. Here, the further supplementary affidavit of Mr Barry was not apparently of this type at all. Mr Barry gave evidence at trial, and, therefore,…
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Quade [1991] HCATrans 227
Citation 3

…appeal would only be allowed if it is demonstrated that the evidence could not with reasonable diligence have been placed before the court at trial: Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Quade (1991) 178 CLR 134, 141. Here, the further supplementary affidavit of Mr Barry was not apparently of this type at all. Mr Barry gave evidence at trial, and,…

AI Chat coming soon