United States legal-change intelligence across legislation, regulation, and case law. Separate data plane, same Zoe spine.

Platform

Legislation
Cases
Ask Zoe
Recently analysed

Company

Pricing
API
X
LinkedIn
Instagram

Jurisdictions

Federal
Supreme Court

District of Columbia

© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.

Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the official source for authoritative text.

Bell v Hartnett Lawyers - [2021] NSWSC 1270 - NSWSC 2021 case summary — Zoe

Legislation Cases Absurdities Ask Zoe Graph Pricing

Home/Cases/[2021] NSWSC 1270

NSWNSWSC

Bell v Hartnett Lawyers

[2021] NSWSC 1270

Supreme Court of NSW|2021-07-13|Before: Slattery J

View original source

At a glance

Source facts

Court

Supreme Court of NSW

Decision date

2021-07-13

Before

Slattery J

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Judgment (18 paragraphs)

[3]

line 4 - comma removed.

[10]

line 9 - "that" removed.

[11]

(3)(b) - line 3 - semicolon added; 11 - line 1 - apostrophe added; 11 - line 2 - "and" inserted.

[18]

line 2 - "was" instead of "is"; line 8 - "the" removed, apostrophe added.

[19]

line 8 - comma inserted.

[20]

line 3 - "were" removed.

[24]

line 2 - "Equity" inserted.

[27]

, [38] - line 6 - abbreviation added.

[35]

line 4 - "to" inserted before "allow".

[46]

line 3 - "to" inserted before "indemnify".

[47]

line 7 - extra citation reference added.

[49]

line 4 - full stop instead of colon.

[50]

line 11 - "been" instead of "being".

[59]

line 3 - "statutory provision or" added before "rules".

[66]

line 1 - "the" removed before "preferable".

[87]

line 1 - "either" removed.

[88]

line 1 - "s" added to "fund".

[96]

line 2 - "Mr Hartnett" instead of "He". line 3 - "he" instead of "they". Order (5) - line 1 - "4pm on" removed. "October" instead of "November". Order (8) - line 1 - "1" instead of "8". Order (11) - "consider" instead of "considering" DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 13 October 2021

Parties

Applicant/Plaintiff:

Bell

Respondent/Defendant:

Hartnett Lawyers

Legislation Cited (3)

Service and Execution Act 1992(Cth)

Legal Profession Act 2004(NSW)

Service and Execution of Process Act 1992(Cth)

Cases Cited (36)

[2000] WASC 2008

[2005] NSWCA 1003

(2013) 86 NSWLR 174

(2021) 392 ALR 154

(1995) 57 FCR 119

(2009) 78 NSWLR 152

(1916) 23 CLR 29

(2002) 54 NSWLR 738

(2018) 97 NSWLR 390

(2005) 65 NSWLR 268

(1986) 47 SASR 532

(1993) 33 NSWLR 1

(1991) 24 NSWLR 116

(2018) 97 NSWLR 398

(1995) 135 ALR 160

(1916) 23 ALR 259

[2021] NSWCA 40

[2016] NSWSC 540

[2000] FCA 628

[2011] NSWCA 375

[2015] NSWCA 121

[2017] NSWSC 1527

[2008] NSWSC 272

[2018] NSWCA 49

[2002] NSWCA 213

[2020] NSWSC 573

[1999] FCA 1006

[2013] NSWSC 973

[2013] NSWCA 141

[2009] NSWCA 327

[2021] NSWSC 202

[2009] NSWCA 185

[2021] NSWCA 201

[2007] NSWSC 911

[2002] NSWSC 564

Cited By (12)

Adelaide Concrete Cutting & Drilling Pty Ltd v Marino

Beau Timothy John Hartnett trading as Hartnett Lawyers v Anthony Robert Bell as Executor of the Estate of the late Mabel Dawn Deakin-Bell

Bell v Hartnett

Bell v Hartnett Lawyers

Bell v Hartnett Lawyers

Campbell v Watson

Cappello v Transport for New South Wales

Hoho Property Pty Ltd v Bass Finance No 37 Pty Ltd

McGettigan v Coulter & Anor; Coulter & Anor v McGettigan

Superb Build Pty Ltd v Petrosyan

Tam v Super Season Pty Ltd

VJ Ray Pty Ltd v Ocwieja