Quick v Stoland Pty Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Australia Federal only |
| Neutral Citation | 1998-0925 FCA J |
| Date | 1998 |
| Year | 1998 |
| Court | Federal Court |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock 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
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
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
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
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
Start Your 7-day Trial
68 cases
- Daniel v Western Australia
- Tru Floor Service Pty Ltd v Jenkins (No 2)
- Daniel v Western Australia
-
Citrus Queensland Pty Ltd v Sunstate Orchards Pty Ltd (No 7)
...149 CLR 191 cited Phoenix Court Pty Ltd v Melbourne Central Pty Ltd (1997)ATPR 46-179 at 54,432 considered Quick v Stoland Pty Ltd (1998) 87 FCR 371 cited Quinlivan v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2004] FCAFC 175 applied Ramsay v Watson [1961] 108 CLR 642 considered Rhone-......
Get Started for Free
2 books & journal articles
-
The Definition and Discovery of Facts in Native Title: The Historian's Contribution
...and Proof of Native Title' in Paul and Gray (eds), above n 20, 11, 17–20; Curthoys and Genovese, above n 76, 87–8. 87 Quick v Stoland (1998) 87 FCR 371, 373–4 (Branson J); Neowarra v Western Australia (No 1) (2003) 134 FCR 208, 217–19 [22]–[27] (Sundberg J); Jango v Northern Territory of Au......
-
The Basis of the ‘Basis Rule’: The Role of the Basis Rule in the Admissibility of Expert Opinion
...relied upon the three Federal Court cases which follow in support of the submission that there is no basis rule under the UEL. 56 (1998) 87 FCR 371, 373–4. 57 Ibid 374. 58 [2002] FCAFC 157 (4 June 2002) [7]–[8]. 324 Federal Law Review Volume 43 ______________________________________________......