Brooks v Burns Philp Trustee Company Ltd

JurisdictionAustralia Federal only
CourtHigh Court
Neutral Citation1969-0305 HCA A,[1969] HCA 4
Year1969
Date1969

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
52 cases
  • Smith v Jenkins
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • Invalid date
  • Amoco Australia Pty. Ltd v Rocca Bros. Motor Engineering Company Pty. Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Privy Council
    • Invalid date
    ...[1920] 3 K.B. 571, C.A. Bennett v. Bennett [1952] 1 K.B. 249; [1952] 1 All E.R. 413, C.A. Brooks v. Burns Philp Trustee Co. Ltd. (1969) 121 C.L.R. 432. Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. Harper's Garage (Stourport) Ltd. [1966] 2 Q.B. 514; [1965] 3 W.L.R. 469; [1965] 2 All E.R. 933; [1966] 2 Q.B. 51......
  • Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • August 9, 2001
    ...do not necessarily display their legal content purely by virtue of their semantic meaning. 37 Observations by Windeyer J in Brooks v Burns Philp Trustee Co Ltd46 are in point here. His Honour was dealing with the different ways in which the terms ‘void’ and ‘unenforceable’ had been used wit......
  • Cattanach v Melchior
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • July 16, 2003
    ...v Barber 69 and Wood v Little 70. Other cases are protective of the authority of the courts. They include the treatment in Brooks v Burns Philp Trustee Co Ltd 71 of covenants to oust the jurisdiction of the courts, the reservation identified in Regie National des Usines Renault SA v Zhang 7......
  • Get Started for Free
2 books & journal articles
  • VITIATING FACTORS IN CONTRACT LAW — THE INTERACTION OF THEORY AND PRACTICE
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 1998, December 1998
    • December 1, 1998
    ...Sampson(1875) LR 19 Eq 462; and Geismar v Sun Alliance and London Insurance Ltd[1978] QB 383 at 389. CfBrooks v Burns Philp Trustee Co Ltd[1969] ALR 321 at 331—349. And see, in the Malaysian context and, in particular, s 24(e) of the Contracts Act (which is based on the Indian Contract Act)......
  • CONTRACTUAL ILLEGALITY AND CONFLICT OF LAWS
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 1995, December 1995
    • December 1, 1995
    ...courts. For Australian cases on the difference between void and unenforceable contracts, see Brooks v. Burns Philp Trustee Co. Ltd.(1969) 121 C.L.R. 432 at 458—61 and Buckley v. Tutty(1971) 125 C.L.R. 353 at 379 et sequentes. 64 See Firm Pratapchand v. Firm Kotrike(1975) A.I.R. S.C. 1223 at......