About: Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd

Facets (new session)
Description
Metadata
Settings
- Rule:
- Inverse Functional Properties:
- "Same As":

About: Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd Goto Sponge NotDistinct Permalink

An Entity of Type : owl:Thing, within Data Space : dbpedia.demo.openlinksw.com associated with source document(s)
QRcode icon

http://dbpedia.demo.openlinksw.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org%2Fresource%2FFarah_Constructions_Pty_Ltd_v_Say-Dee_Pty_Ltd

Farah Constructions v Say-Dee Pty Ltd, also known as Farah, is a decision of the High Court of Australia. The case was influential in developing Australian legal doctrines relating to equity, property, unjust enrichment, and constructive trusts, as well as the doctrine of precedent as it applies in Australia. The decision also resolved in part the relationship between Barnes v Addy liability and the Torrens system; the court definitively stated that unjust enrichment is not the doctrinal basis for such claims.

Attributes	Values
rdfs:label	Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd (en)
rdfs:comment	Farah Constructions v Say-Dee Pty Ltd, also known as Farah, is a decision of the High Court of Australia. The case was influential in developing Australian legal doctrines relating to equity, property, unjust enrichment, and constructive trusts, as well as the doctrine of precedent as it applies in Australia. The decision also resolved in part the relationship between Barnes v Addy liability and the Torrens system; the court definitively stated that unjust enrichment is not the doctrinal basis for such claims. (en)
name	Farah Constructions v Say-Dee (en)
foaf:depiction
dcterms:subject	Common law High Court of Australia cases Equity (law) Unjust enrichment
Wikipage page ID	65726445 (xsd:integer)
Wikipage revision ID	1100100713 (xsd:integer)
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage	English unjust enrichment law Torrens System Constructive trusts in English law Chief Justice of Australia Property law George Palmer (composer) Murray Gleeson Murray Tobias Crossclaim Equity (law) Peter Birks Common law Partnership Planning permission Common law Appian Way, Burwood Trial (law) William Gummow Crennan Hartley Hansen Dyson Heydon Barnes v Addy List of High Court of Australia cases Unjust enrichment Ratio decidendi High Court of Australia High Court of Australia cases Equity (law) Keith Mason (judge) Supreme Court of New South Wales Doctrine of precedent Ian Callinan Unjust enrichment Unanimity Obiter dictum Roger Giles Sydney Law Review Justices NSW Court of Appeal Remedy (law) Fiduciary duty Victorian Supreme Court
Link from a Wikipage to an external page	https://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/opinionsonhigh/2013/08/21/lee-precedent-on-high/%7Curl-status=live%7Carchive-url=https:/web.archive.org/web/20200413051936/https:/blogs.unimelb.edu.au/opinionsonhigh/2013/08/21/lee-precedent-on-high/%7Carchive-date=13 https://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/opinionsonhigh/2014/07/28/barnett-mason%7Ctitle=Sir http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/QUTLawRw/2015/3.html http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/SydLawRw/2007/27.html http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/SydLawRw/2012/12.html http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UMelbLRS/2007/14.pdf
sameAs	Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate	dbt:Abbr dbt:Cite_web dbt:No_wrap dbt:Refbegin dbt:Refend dbt:Reflist dbt:Refn dbt:Sfnp dbt:Short_description dbt:Use_Australian_English dbt:Use_dmy_dates dbt:Cite_AustLII dbt:Infobox_court_case
thumbnail	wiki-commons:Special:FilePath/Coat_of_Arms_of_Australia.svg?width=300
court	High Court of Australia
full name	Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd (en)
judges	Chief Justice of Australia Murray Gleeson William Gummow Crennan Dyson Heydon Ian Callinan Justices
has abstract	Farah Constructions v Say-Dee Pty Ltd, also known as Farah, is a decision of the High Court of Australia. The case was influential in developing Australian legal doctrines relating to equity, property, unjust enrichment, and constructive trusts, as well as the doctrine of precedent as it applies in Australia. In relation to the doctrine of precedent, the High Court held that Australian intermediate appellate courts and trial judges are bound by earlier decisions of intermediate appellate courts when construing federal and uniform national legislation, as well as non-statutory law, unless convinced that the earlier decision was 'plainly wrong'. It further held that lower courts in Australia must obey the 'seriously considered dicta' of a High Court majority. The decision also resolved in part the relationship between Barnes v Addy liability and the Torrens system; the court definitively stated that unjust enrichment is not the doctrinal basis for such claims. (en)
date decided	2007-05-24 (xsd:date)
opinions	(en) appeal allowed (en)
prov:wasDerivedFrom	wikipedia-en:Farah_Constructions_Pty_Ltd_v_Say-Dee_Pty_Ltd?oldid=1100100713&ns=0
page length (characters) of wiki page	14987 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf	wikipedia-en:Farah_Constructions_Pty_Ltd_v_Say-Dee_Pty_Ltd
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage of	Muschinski v Dodds Barnes v Addy List of High Court of Australia cases
is foaf:primaryTopic of	wikipedia-en:Farah_Constructions_Pty_Ltd_v_Say-Dee_Pty_Ltd

Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git139 as of Feb 29 2024

Alternative Linked Data Documents: ODE Content Formats:

RDF

ODATA

Microdata

About

OpenLink Virtuoso version 08.03.3330 as of Mar 19 2024, on Linux (x86_64-generic-linux-glibc212), Single-Server Edition (378 GB total memory, 59 GB memory in use)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2024 OpenLink Software