Liebe v Molloy
| Jurisdiction | Australia Federal only |
| Court | High Court |
| Neutral Citation | [1906] HCA 67,1906-1029 HCA A |
| Date | 1906 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
9 cases
-
Globe Motors, Inc. (a corporation incorporated in Delaware, USA) and Others v TRW Lucas Varity Electric Steering Ltd (First Defendant/Appellant) TRW Ltd (Second Defendant)
...World Online Telecom case and favoured by Gloster LJ and Stuart-Smith J in Energy Venture and Virulite. For example, in Liebe v Molloy (1906) 4 CLR 347 the High Court of Australia considered a building contract containing a clause that extra items should not be paid for unless ordered in wr......
-
MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd (Claimant/ Respondent) v Rock Advertising Ltd (Defendant/ Appellant)
...v Virulite Distribution [2014] EWHC 366 (QB) at [55]. He also drew attention to the supportive decision of the High Court of Australia in Liebe v Molloy (1906) 4 CLR 347. 24 In the course of his review, Beatson LJ explained that United Bank and World Online Telecom were both appeals from de......
-
Rock Advertising Ltd v MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd
...support of the rule stated by Cardozo J in New York and other jurisdictions of the United States. It has also been applied in Australia: Liebe v Molloy (1906) 4 CLR 347 (High Court); Commonwealth v Crothall Hospital Services (Aust) Ltd (1981) 54 FLR 439, 447 et seq; GEC Marconi Systems Pty ......
- Gec Marconi Systems Pty Ltd v Bhp Information Technology Pty Ltd
Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
-
UNJUST ENRICHMENT IN AUSTRALIA: WHAT IS(N'T) IT? IMPLICATIONS FOR LEGAL REASONING AND PRACTICE.
...[2003] EWHC 388, [14] (Lightman J). In Australia, the position is less clear in the light of Lumbers, but still arguable: Liebe v Molloy (1906) 4 CLR 347, 353-4 (Griffith CJ for the Court); Lampson (n 41) [90] (Edelman (135) Woolwich Equitable Building Society v Inland Revenue Commissioners......