Cribb v Kingsbury (No 2) [2021] FCA 1397 — BarristerAI

Cribb v Kingsbury (No 2)

[2021] FCA 1397

Federal Court of Australia10 November 2021

View on AustLII View on JADE Download

Judges

Mckerracher J

Headnote

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

Generate the headnote

Free trial · no card required

Case Details

Citation[2021] FCA 1397

CourtFCA

JurisdictionCommonwealth

Decision Date10 November 2021

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

Start free trial

No card · cancel anytime

Judgment

Judges

Mckerracher J

Subsequent Judicial Consideration1›

Cases that have considered Cribb v Kingsbury (No 2)

Referred to (1)

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Select AFSL Pty Ltd (No 2) [2022] FCA 786

Judicial Consideration (Chronological)

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Select AFSL Pty Ltd (No 2) [2022] FCA 786Referred to

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.

Cribb v Kingsbury (No 2) at [30]

Where a representee establishes that a representation was made with reckless indifference to truth, the Castlereagh-Mornington doctrine of estoppel by representation permits an estoppel even absent proof of detrimental reliance, provided the representor's conduct evinces a settled intention to mislead

Where a representee establishes that a representation was made with reckless indifference to truth, the Castlereagh-Mornington doctrine of estoppel by representation permits an estoppel even absent proof of detrimental reliance, provided the representor's conduct evinces a settled intention to mislead.

Cribb v Kingsbury (No 2) at [37]

Judges

Headnote

Case Details

Built by Barristers,For Australian Law.

Judgment

Subsequent Judicial Consideration1›

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.