Stone & Rolls Ltd (in liq) v Moore Stephens (a firm)
[2009] UKHL 39
Citation 1
…of justification but was rather based on “a group of reasons which vary in different situations”. And in Stone and Rolls Ltd v Moore Stephens [2009] UKHL 39; [2009] AC 1391, para 25 Lord Phillips expressly endorsed what Lord Hoffmann had said about the public policy nature of ex turpi causa , observing that it wa…
Clayton v The Queen
[2006] HCA 58
Citation 2
…the Commission), and there is no reason for optimism that it would take a different view if presented with a wider bill. In Clayton v The Queen (2006) 231 ALR 500, para 119, Kirby J said that waiting for a modern Parliament to grapple with issues of law reform is like “waiting for the Greek Kalends. It will not happe…
Fitzgerald v F J Leonhardt Pty Ltd
[1997] HCA 17
Citation 3
…McHugh J’s approach was cited with approval by a majority of the High Court in Fitzgerald v F J Leonhardt Pty Ltd [1997] HCA 17; (1997) 189 CLR 215.…
JL Holdings Pty Ltd v The State of Queensland
[1997] FCA 507
Citation 4
…50. In Nelson v Nelson [1995] HCA 25; (1995) 184 CLR 538, the High Court of Australia considered essentially the same issues as in Tinsley v Milligan , which it declined to follow. As the widow of a mariner who had served in World War 1, Mrs Nelson was eligible under the Defence Service Homes Act 1918 to buy a house…
Gray v Thames Trains & Ors
[2009] UKHL 33
Citation 5
…ular instance, is the only logical way to proceed. That it is, in truth, a policy based rule has been clearly recognised. In Gray v Thames Trains Ltd [2009] UKHL 33; [2009] AC 1339, para 30, Lord Hoffmann said that the maxim expressed, “not so much a principle as a policy” and that it did not have a single basis…