References in periodicals archive ?
In such cases, the plaintiff and defendant may have a 'shared responsibility': Tai v Hatzistavrou [1999] NSWCA 306, [56] (Priestley JA).
The judgment of Patsalis v State of New South Wales [2012] NSWCA 307 ('Patsalis') is a decision of significance for the law in New South Wales for various reasons.
(112.) In specific relation to torture, see Zhang [2010] NSWCA paras.
Tabet [2009] NSWCA 76 (noting definition of harm for purposes of tort reform across Australia does not include a risk of physical or mental injury).
Important legal concerns may arise even where provision for employee financial participation is made not through enterprise agreements but through quite separate and private contractual arrangements, giving rise to uncertainty as to their operation and subsequent litigation (see, eg, Bredel v Moore Business Systems Australia [2003] NSWCA 117; Lau v Bob Jane T-Marts [2004] VSC 69).
(48) Solution 6 Holdings Limited & Ors v Industrial Relations Commission of NSW & Ors [2004] NSWCA 200.
(2) For example, the absence of deception in Thorne is somewhat problematic given the importance that it has been afforded in cases like Louth v Diprose (1992) 175 CLR 621, Mackintosh v Johnson (2013) VSCA 10 and Wu v Ling [2016] NSWCA 322.
A classification derived from House along these lines was made and applied in Micallef v ICI Australia Operations Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 274, [45] and affirmed in R v Ford (2009) 273 ALR 286, 306-7 [76].
(81) Voir par ex Seltsam Pty Ltd v McGuinness, [2000] NSWCA 29 au para 109, 49 NSWLR 262; Sabatino (Tuteur a l'instance) v New South Wales & Ors, [2001] NSWCA 380 au para 70 (disponible sur AustLII).
(95.) See Leerdam v Noori, [2009] NSWCA 90, Spigelman CJ ("[i]n almost all cases the answer will be obvious" at para 3).
(151) Irvine v Irvine [2008] NSWSC 592 (16 June 2008) (Barrett J); Aboody v Ryan [2012] NSWCA 395 (4 December 2012).