References in periodicals archive ?
SUPPLY SHORTAGENairobi County has been experiencing water rationing since April 2017 with the huge difference in demand and supply being blamed on an inadequate water infrastructure.This has been occasioned by demand outstripping supply as NSWSC can only produce a maximum of 526, 000 cubic meters of water daily against a demand of 790, 000 cubic meters.
(18) See also Mavaddat v HSBC Bank Australia [No 2] (2016] WASCA 94,  (McLure P); Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Stephens  VSC 385,  (Sloss J); Roo Roofing Pty Ltd v Commonwealth  VSC 31, [ 135] (Dixon J); Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Kojic  FCAFC 186, [591 (Allsop CJ); Donnelly v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd  NSWCA 145,  (Macfarlan JA); Lauvan Pty Limited & Anor v Bega & Ors (No 2)  NSWSC 155,  (Gleeson JA); Nalbandian v Commonwealth of Australia  FCA 45,  (Burley J); Kohelt v Australian Securities and Investments Commission  FCAFC 18,  (Besanko and Gilmour JJ).
(68.) See, e.g., Boardman v South Eastern System Area Health Service  NSWSC 930 (Austl.) (finding no joint conference of four medical experts where clear and firm divergence of opinion on the central medical and factual issues); Spasovic v Sydney Adventist Hospital  NSWSC 164 (Austl.) (finding no reasonable expectation expert conference would yield agreement on any issue).
(21) Regina v Lodhi  NSWSC 691 (23 August 2006).
The question of admissibility of evidence from the perspective of forensic marketing pertaining to marketing issues was addressed in the Supreme Court of New South Wales in Traderight (NSW) Pty Ltd & Ors v Bank of Queensland Limited (No10)  NSWSC 1181.
Edwards; Re the estate of the late Mark Edwards  NSWSC 478
Medical law reporter: Civil liberties and the critics of safe vaccination: Australian Vaccination Network Inc v Health Care Complaints Commission  NSWSC 110.
As Hallen J at paragraph  said In Estate of Laura Angius; Angius v Angius  NSWSC 1895:
2012, 'Judgment: Liu v The Age Company Limited  NSWSC 12 Supreme Court of NSW 1', Media Watch, February, www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/0212_ judgement.pdf.
He said that in an action for unfair preference under the Australian legislation the liquidator might obtain an order for the payment of money, but the action did not contemplate recovery in the sense applicable to damages and debts; and the proceedings sought to remedy or counter the effects of that depletion caused by the payment by New Cap: New Cap Reinsurance Corpn v Renaissance Reinsurance Ltd  NSWSC 856, paras 23, 27.
Carter v NSWNetball Association  NSWSC 737 (17 August).
Comm'n v Adler  NSWSC 483 (Austl.) (imposing pecuniary penalties of $5,000 and $450,000 on former directors of HIH).
Acronyms browser ?
Full browser ?
- NSX Club of America