Of course it's just a tree.  What does it look like ?
RDG online
Restitution Discussion Group Archives
  
 
 

Restitution
front page

What's new?

Another tree!

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Another tree!

 
<== Previous message       Back to index        Next message ==>
Sender:
James Douglas
Date:
Fri, 7 Jun 2002 16:29:26 +1000
Re:
Port of Brisbane Corp v ANZ Securities

 

The Queensland Court of Appeal has recently allowed an appeal from a decision the details of which I posted to this group some months ago. It deals with resulting trusts and whether a restitutionary remedy is available where money is paid to an agent then paid out on instructions, whether the defence of change of position is available and whether in paying the money out the agent was acting to its detriment on the faith of the receipt.

The judgment can be found at:

http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/qjudgment/ca02_151.htm

It's in a pdf file under the name:

Port of Brisbane Corp v. ANZ Securities [2002] QCA 158 (01/1159) (McPherson JA Davies JA Mullins J 10/05/2002 18 pages)

It deals with the following decisions:

Australia and New Zealand Banking Corporation v Westpac Banking Corporation (1988) 164 CLR 662, applied

Barnes v Addy (1874) 9 Ch App 386, applied

Baylis v Bishop of London [1913] 1 Ch 127, considered

Black v Freedman (1910) 12 CLR 105, applied

Consul Development Pty Limited v DPC Estates Pty Ltd (1975) 132 CLR 373, applied

Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex D 153, applied

Daly v Sydney Stock Exchange (1986) 160 CLR 371, followed

David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1992) 175 CLR 353, followed

James v Oxley (1939) 61 CLR 433, distinguished

Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd [1991] 2 AC 548, applied

Lurgi (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sandess Pty Ltd [2000] VSC 278, applied

Moses v Macferlan (1770) 2 Burr 1005, considered

Parsons v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 615, considered

Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul (1987) 162 CLR 32, considered

Perel v Australian Bank of Commerce (1923) 24 SR (NSW) 62, considered

Pollard v Bank of England (1871) LR 6 QB 623, applied

R v Vinogradoff [1935] WN 68, applied

Sinclair v Brougham [1914] AC 398, considered

State Bank of New South Wales Ltd v Swiss Bank Corporation (1995) 39 NSWLR 350, distinguished

Tresize v National Australia Bank Ltd (1994) 30 FCR 134, applied

United States Surgical Corporation v Hospital Products International Pty Ltd [1983] 2 NSWLR 157, applied

Westdeutsche Bank v Islington Local Borough Council [1996] AC 669, distinguished

--
Kind regards,
James Douglas QC


<== Previous message       Back to index        Next message ==>

" These messages are all © their authors. Nothing in them constitutes legal advice, to anyone, on any topic, least of all Restitution. Be warned that very few propositions in Restitution command universal agreement, and certainly not this one. Have a nice day! "


     
Webspace provided by UCC   »
»
»
»
»
For editorial policy, see here.
For the unedited archive, see here.
The archive editor is Steve Hedley.
only search restitution site

 
 Contact the webmaster !