Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd

JurisdictionAustralia Federal only
Neutral Citation[1981] HCA 45,1981-0901 HCA B
Date1981
CourtHigh Court
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
725 cases
6 firm's commentaries
  • Anshun Estoppel – the risks of waiting, 25 years on
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 5 Julio 2016
    ...estoppel" may be a quarter of a century old, having been laid down by the High Court in Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd [1981] HCA 45, but they retain critical importance. In essence, an Anshun estoppel can prevent a party from making claims which should have been pursued in ea......
  • Claims in contract and estoppel: The jurisdiction of the NSW Land and Environment Court
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 13 Abril 2015
    ...that Wilson could not now seek to rely upon those alleged rights, pursuant to the judgment in Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun (1981) 147 CLR 589. In rejecting the Council's claim, the Court noted Wilson had not previously sought to enlarge, intensify, alter, rebuild or change (Alterati......
  • 'Anshun' estoppel - the risks of waiting
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 26 Enero 2012
    ...the supplier. But is it too late? Have you lost the opportunity to pursue your claim? In Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd [1981] HCA 45, the High Court laid down the principles which came to be known as "Anshun estoppel". In essence, a party can be prevented from making claims w......
  • Group members not prevented from raising individual defences in subsequent actions for debt recovery
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 9 Enero 2017
    ...recent years, producing conflicting authorities. The key issue has been whether Anshun (Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd [1981] HCA 45) estoppel applies; that is, that group members are prevented from bringing claims or raising defences in subsequent proceedings which should hav......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Litigation
    • United Kingdom
    • Construction Law. Volume III - Third Edition
    • 13 Abril 2020
    ...(1843) 3 Hare 100 at 114–115, per Sir James Wigram V-C [67 ER 313 at 319]. See also Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589 at 602–603, per Gibbs CJ, Mason and Aickin JJ; Beoco Ltd v Alfa Laval Co Ltd [1995] QB 137 at 147, per Stuart-Smith LJ; Hamlin v Edwin Evans (1......
  • Conclusion : reconceptualising the maritime lien and the conflict of laws
    • South Africa
    • Transactions of the Centre for Business Law No. 2011-47, January 2011
    • 1 Enero 2011
    ...v Milotin (1957) 97 CLR 465 at 474; and Zakrzewski, op cit n 101, at 50. See, however, Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589 for a discussion of the other meanings of the term cause of action.257 Fielder v Ohio Edison Co 109 NE 2d 855 (1952). See also Maher, op cit......
  • THE APPLICATION OF THE HENDERSON V HENDERSON RULE IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2014, December 2014
    • 1 Diciembre 2014
    ...5 HKLRD 1. 4Asia Commercial Finance (M) Bhd v Kawal Teliti Sdn Bhd[1995] 3 MLJ 189. 5Port of Melbourne Authority v Ashnun Pty Ltd(1981) 147 CLR 589. 6Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Bhanabhai[2007] 2 NZLR 478. 7 Filip De Ly & Audley Sheppard, “ILA Recommendations on Lis Pendens and Res Jud......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT