Russell v Russell [1917] HCA 59 — BarristerAI

Russell v Russell

(1917) 24 CLR 19; [1917] HCA 59

High Court of Australia2 November 1917

Quick Take

This brief procedural ruling has minimal precedential value as it merely records the grant of special leave without disclosing the Court's reasoning.

Headnote

No headnote yet — we'll generate the full structured AI headnote for you.

Generate the headnote

Free trial · no card required

Legal Areas

High Court Jurisdiction

Linked Principles

Legal principles extracted from this case

Start free trial

Free trial — no card required

Case Details

Citation[1917] HCA 59

Reported(1917) 24 CLR 19

CourtHCA

JurisdictionCommonwealth

Decision Date2 November 1917

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

Start free trial

No card · cancel anytime

Judgment

Reported

(1917) 24 CLR 19

Subsequent Judicial Consideration4›

Cases that have considered Russell v Russell

Referred to (4)

R v. M [2001] QCA 131 Titelius v Public Service Appeal Board & Ors [1999] WASCA 19 [1993] QCA 12 Seamen's Union of Australasia v Commonwealth Steamship Owners' Association [1936] HCA 8

Judicial Consideration (Chronological)

R v. M [2001] QCA 131Referred to

Titelius v Public Service Appeal Board & Ors [1999] WASCA 19Referred to

[1993] QCA 12Referred to

Seamen's Union of Australasia v Commonwealth Steamship Owners' Association [1936] HCA 8Referred to

Where a party seeks to rely upon an estoppel by convention, the party must demonstrate that the common assumption was shared by both parties and that it would be unconscionable to permit departure from it

Where a party seeks to rely upon an estoppel by convention, the party must demonstrate that the common assumption was shared by both parties and that it would be unconscionable to permit departure from it.

Russell v Russell at [30]

On an application to set aside a statutory demand under section 459G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), the Wallaroo-Yorke rule for statutory demands requires the applicant to identify with specificity the offsetting claim relied upon, supported by evidence sufficient to demonstrate a genuine triable issue

On an application to set aside a statutory demand under section 459G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), the Wallaroo-Yorke rule for statutory demands requires the applicant to identify with specificity the offsetting claim relied upon, supported by evidence sufficient to demonstrate a genuine triable issue.

Russell v Russell at [37]