Zoe

Where to start with an Australian legal problem: plain-English guides, with the legislation and case law behind them.

Platform

Legislation
Cases
Guides
Find a lawyer
Absurdities
Ask Zoe
Graph
Recently analysed

Free tools

Bond claim checker
Barking dog and noise diary
Support at Home statement check
All tools

Lawyers: our picks

Zoe

Where to start with an Australian legal problem: plain-English guides, with the legislation and case law behind them.

Platform

Legislation
Cases
Guides
Find a lawyer
Absurdities
Ask Zoe
Graph
Recently analysed

Free tools

Bond claim checker
Barking dog and noise diary
Support at Home statement check
All tools

Lawyers: our picks

Lawyers in Sydney
Lawyers in Melbourne
Lawyers in Brisbane
Lawyers in Perth
Family lawyers
Employment lawyers
Criminal lawyers
Wills and estates lawyers
Find a lawyer

Company

Pricing
API
Privacy
Terms
Support
X
LinkedIn
Instagram

Jurisdictions

Commonwealth
New South Wales
Queensland
Victoria
Western Australia
South Australia
Tasmania
Australian Capital Territory
Northern Territory

Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.

George Wills & Co Ltd v Davids Pty Ltd [1957] HCA 6 | Case summary | Zoe

Zoe

Legislation Cases Guides Find a lawyer Absurdities Ask Zoe Graph Pricing

Ask Zoe →

Home/Cases/[1957] HCA 6

CTHHCA

George Wills & Co Ltd v Davids Pty Ltd

[1957] HCA 6

High Court of Australia|1957-07-01|Before: Taylor JJ

View original source

At a glance

Source facts

Court

High Court of Australia

Decision date

1957-07-01

Before

Taylor JJ

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Judgment (1 paragraphs)

[1]

For the reasons given the appeal should be allowed.

Parties

Applicant/Plaintiff:

George Wills & Co Ltd

Respondent/Defendant:

Davids Pty Ltd

Cases Cited (1)

High Court of Australia Dixon C.J. McTiernan, Williams, Fullagar and Taylor JJ. George Wills & Co Ltd v Davids Pty Ltd [1957] HCA 6

Cited By (1)

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Jayco Corporation Pty Ltd