{ tooltip = 'Copied'; setTimeout(() => tooltip = 'Copy Link', 2000); })" :data-tip="tooltip" class="tooltip tooltip-primary tooltip-bottom" class="cursor-pointer" role="button">
Mobil Oil Australia Pty Limited v Trendlen Pty Limited
Download as PDF
Download as Word
Highlights
My Notes
Collections
Create a New Collection
Overview
Full Text
{ tooltip = 'Copied'; setTimeout(() => tooltip = 'Copy Link', 2000); })" :data-tip="tooltip" class="tooltip tooltip-primary tooltip-bottom" class="cursor-pointer" role="button">
Details
Case
Agency Issuance Number
Published Date
Mobil Oil Australia Pty Limited v Trendlen Pty Limited
[2006] HCA 42
Tags
No tags available
Case
Mobil Oil Australia Pty Limited v Trendlen Pty Limited
[2006] HCA 42
•
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIAGLEESON CJGUMMOW, KIRBY, HAYNE, CALLINAN, HEYDON AND CRENNAN JJMOBIL OIL AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED APPELLANTANDTRENDLEN PTY LIMITED RESPONDENTMobil Oil Australia Pty Limited v Trendlen Pty Limited[2006] HCA 4230 August 2006S523/2005ORDER1.Appeal allowed with costs.2.Set aside the orders of the Supreme Court of New South Wales made on 27 July 2005 and in their place order that:(a)the plaintiff's notice of motion filed on 13 May 2005 be dismissed with costs; (b)the proceedings not be continued as representative proceedings; and(c)the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the defendant's notice of motion filed on 7 October 2003.On appeal from the Supreme Court of New South WalesRepresentationJ T Gleeson SC with J K Kirk for the appellant (instructed by Blake Dawson Waldron Lawyers)S J Gageler SC with M J Leeming for the respondent (instructed by Robert Richards & Associates)IntervenerH C Burmester QC with R A Pepper for the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.CATCHWORDSMobil Oil Australia Pty Limited v Trendlen Pty Limited Practice – Representative proceedings – Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW), Pt 8 r 13 – Representative proceedings brought by petroleum retailer to recover licence fees paid to wholesaler – Proceedings financed by litigation funder – Whether proceedings champertous – Whether provisions for representative proceedings in the Supreme Court Rules were validly engaged – "Same interest" – Common interest of fact or law – Whether there were,...
Continue reading the full case
Tags
No tags available
Case
Mobil Oil Australia Pty Limited v Trendlen Pty Limited
[2006] HCA 42
•
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIAGLEESON CJGUMMOW, KIRBY, HAYNE, CALLINAN, HEYDON AND CRENNAN JJMOBIL OIL AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED APPELLANTANDTRENDLEN PTY LIMITED RESPONDENTMobil Oil Australia Pty Limited v Trendlen Pty Limited[2006] HCA 4230 August 2006S523/2005ORDER1.Appeal allowed with costs.2.Set aside the orders of the Supreme Court of New South Wales made on 27 July 2005 and in their place order that:(a)the plaintiff's notice of motion filed on 13 May 2005 be dismissed with costs; (b)the proceedings not be continued as representative proceedings; and(c)the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the defendant's notice of motion filed on 7 October 2003.On appeal from the Supreme Court of New South WalesRepresentationJ T Gleeson SC with J K Kirk for the appellant (instructed by Blake Dawson Waldron Lawyers)S J Gageler SC with M J Leeming for the respondent (instructed by Robert Richards & Associates)IntervenerH C Burmester QC with R A Pepper for the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.CATCHWORDSMobil Oil Australia Pty Limited v Trendlen Pty Limited Practice – Representative proceedings – Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW), Pt 8 r 13 – Representative proceedings brought by petroleum retailer to recover licence fees paid to wholesaler – Proceedings financed by litigation funder – Whether proceedings champertous – Whether provisions for representative proceedings in the Supreme Court Rules were validly engaged – "Same interest" – Common interest of fact or law – Whether there were,...
showFlash = false, 6000)"
>