NSWSCNew South Wales Supreme Court (Australia)
NSWSCNew South Wales Speleological Council (Australia)
References in periodicals archive ?
Owners--SP69567 v Landson Alliance Australia [2014] NSWSC 1592.
20) Re Switch Telecommunications Pty Ltd (in liq); Ex parte Sherman [2000] NSWSC 794; (2000) 35 ACSR 172.
21) Regina v Lodhi [2006] 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) [2012] NSWSC 1181.
93) MAW, [2000] NSWSC at [paragraph][paragraph] 5, 7, 17-21, 24,
In determining whether a person intended a document to form his or her will, Justice Hallen in Estate of Laura Angius; Angius v Angius [2013] NSWSC 1895, at paragraph [268] noted that a court may consider the form and content of the document, have regard to evidence relating to the manner in which the document was executed, and consider any evidence of the testamentary intentions of the person, including evidence of statements made by the deceased person.
See, for example, Carter v NSWNetball Association [2004] NSWSC 737 (17 August).
For example, in Potier v General Manager & Governor, MRRC (Metropolitan Reception & Remand Centre) [2007] NSWSC 1031, Potier (a person convicted of a serious indictable offence) brought an application for writ of habeas corpus in order to prepare his appeal with better facilities and access to his legal team.
For recent examples, which emphasise that the ground has been stretched to the point where it is no longer a substantial obstacle to bringing a tort action in New South Wales, see Sigma Coachair Croup Pty Limited v Bock Australia Pty Limited [2009] NSWSC 684; Barach v University of New South Wales [2011] NSWSC 431.
4) See Austrialian Securities andlnvestment Commission v Citigroup Global Markets Australia Pty Ltd (No 4), [2007] FCA 963, 160 FCR 35; Australian Securities and Investment Commission vRich & Anor, [2009] NSWSC 1229, 236 FLR 1; James Hardie Industries NV v Australian Securities and Investments Commission, [2010] NSWCA 332, 274 ALR 85, special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia granted, 17 December 2010.
in Cargill International SA v Peabody Australia Mining Ltd [2010] NSWSC 887, the New South Wales Supreme Court decided that the reasoning in Eisenwerk was "plainly wrong" and found that the ICC Rules could co-exist with the Model Law
In a case heard in the New South Wales Supreme Court in 1999, BT v Oei [1999] NSWSC 1082, the court held that a medical practitioner owed a duty of care to the sexual partner/s of a patient.