Roxborough v Rothmans of Pall Mall Australia Ltd

JurisdictionAustralia Federal only
CourtFederal Court
Neutral Citation1999-1111 FCA I
Year1999
Date1999

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
16 cases
  • Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Haxton
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 8 March 2012
    ...the payment has failed to materialise or, if it did exist, has failed to sustain itself.’ 32 As Gummow J pointed out in Roxborough v Rothmans of Pall Mall Australia Ltd 54, failure of consideration for the purpose of a claim for money had and received is not confined by contractual principl......
  • Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust v South Sydney City Council
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 14 February 2002
    ... ... JJ S263/2000 HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA Royal Botanic Gardens and ... (Australia) Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 226 at 241; Roxborough v Rothmans of Pall Mall Australia Ltd (2001) 185 ALR 335 ... ...
  • Farah ConstructIons Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 24 May 2007
    ...is not a ‘definitive legal principle according to its own terms’ 128. If it were not so, as Gummow J pointed out in Roxborough v Rothmans of Pall Mall Australia Ltd129: ‘[S]ubstance and dynamism may be restricted by dogma. In turn, the dogma will tend to generate new fictions in order to re......
  • Australian Capital Territory v Queanbeyan City Council
    • Australia
    • Full Federal Court (Australia)
    • Invalid date
  • Get Started for Free