Manenti v Melbourne and Metropolitan Tramways Board

JurisdictionAustralia Federal only
Year1954
Date1954
CourtUnspecified Court (Australia)

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
4 cases
  • D F Lyons Pty Ltd Vcommonwealth Bank of Australia
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • Invalid date
  • Pearce v Button
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • Invalid date
  • Smyth v Hugh Tunney Crofter Properties Ltd
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • June 26, 1992
    ...HALES V KERR 1908 2 KB 601 CUMMINS V SIR W ARROL & CO 1962 1 AER 623 MOOD MUSIC V DE WOLFE 1976 CH 119 MANENTI V MELBOURNE TRAFFIC CO 1954 VLR 115 CROSS ON EVIDENCE 6ED 289, 307 & 386 Synopsis: PRACTICE Appeal Evidence - Further evidence - Introduction - Permission - Supreme Court - Relev......
  • Bradford City Metropolitan Council v K. (Minors)
    • United Kingdom
    • Family Division
    • Invalid date
    ...acts." [1989] FCR 738 at 750 In the footnote it is stated: "Such a discretion has been denied in Australia, see Manenti v. Melbourne Tramways [1954] V.L.R. 115 at 118. It may be noted that the corresponding r.403 of the United States Federal Rules does apply to civil proceedings. Although t......