McGregor v Stokes

JurisdictionAustralia Federal only
Year1952
Date1952
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
5 cases
  • Pollitt v R
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • Invalid date
  • Oei Hengky Wiryo v Hksar
    • Hong Kong
    • Court of Final Appeal (Hong Kong)
    • 9 February 2007
    ...activity carried on at the premises: see Davidson v. Quirke (1923) 42 NZLR 552; Lenthall v. Mitchell [1933] SASR 231; McGregor v. Stokes [1952] VLR 347; Marshall v. Watt, Struthers, and County [1953] Tas SR 1; Gorman v. Newton; ex parte Newton [1958] Qd R 169, Police v. Machirus [1977] 1 NZ......
  • R. v. Blastland
    • Canada
    • 25 July 1985
    ...made. A telephone call is a composite act, made up of manual operations together with the utterance of words (cf. McGregor v. Stokes , [1952] V.L.R. 347, and remarks of Salmond, J., therein quoted). To confine the evidence to the first would be to deprive the act of most of its significance......
  • The Queen v Ng Kin Yee
    • Hong Kong
    • High Court (Hong Kong)
    • 22 July 1993
    ...place this for me”. In my judgment, I followed HO Sheung-yin v. The Queen (supra) and three New Zealand cases, viz., McGregor v. Stokes [1952] VLR 347, Murtagh v. Paltos [1974] VR 768, and Police v. Machirus [1977] 1 NZLR 288. I also quoted at some length Ratten v. The Queen [1972] AC 378 (......
  • Get Started for Free