QLDQCA
Rockett & Devencorn v Proprietors 'The Sands' BUP 82 [2001] QCA 99
[2001] QCA 99
Court of Appeal (Qld)|2001-08-11|Before: McPherson and Williams JJA, Wilson JSeparate reasons for judgment of, each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
View original sourceAt a glance
Source factsCourt
Court of Appeal (Qld)
Decision date
2001-08-11
Before
McPherson and Williams JJA, Wilson JSeparate reasons for judgment of, each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
Catchwords
- APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - QUEENSLAND – POWERS OF COURT
- – further evidence – Whether a judgment of
- the Court of Appeal
- constitutes a “fact” or “facts” under rule 668(1)(a)
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Catchwords
APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - QUEENSLAND – POWERS OF COURT– further evidence – Whether a judgment ofthe Court of Appealconstitutes a “fact” or “facts” under rule 668(1)(a)UCPR.PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND– Discontinuance – Effect of consent order dismissing anappeal onlater application to vary judgment.Body Corporate and CommunityManagement Act 1997 (Qld), s. 259Defamation Act 1889 (Qld), s 16,s 17Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 668, r 689,r 762Concut Pty Ltd v Worrell (2000) 75 ALJR 312,consideredHarvey v Phillips [1956] HCA 27(1956) 95 CLR 235, consideredK G KConstructions Pty Ltd v East Coast Earthmoving Pty Ltd [1985] 2 Qd R 40,followedPavlides v Jensen [1956] Ch 565, distinguishedRayner vRayner [1968] QWN 42Stubberfield v Brisbane City Council [1996]QCA 184, distinguishedWoods v Sheriff of Queensland (1895) 6 QLJ 163,considered
Judgment
Judgment text is temporarily unavailable while the source document is re-fetched.