Judgment · High Court · 2011
Judgment
, < 1 D C D C D C — L C D C L C o h t D C 0 D C L C S C t i c S C L C . i i ( D C o L C L C D C D C D C ( . i c r H L C 2 ‘ 2 2 D C D C i c i c D C L C D C D C D C L C D C D C t r L C D C 9 5 i c r o D C D C L C * r D C D C D C D C ( e i d D C D C i c * r i c r i c D C 0 C t r i c D C L C - 4 D C ’ 5 — 5 p i ‘ D C D C i c r C D C 5 5 D C N D C D C t r - 5 4 — 2 ‘ 1 ‘ D C : D C L C L C D C D C L C D C L C 0 - B 4 D C ’ f 4f ( 0 ’ 5 . H L C D C L C . i c t r D C m - : & B — L C D C D C L C D C 0 0 D C L C L C : 5 L C ’ 5 H L C N ’ 5 : B 5 ‘ i s “ C D C 5 5 D C ’ 5 i i c D C , D C D C o u — o t r D C . D C D C 3 S C S H H B ’ 5 ’ 5 2 D C ’ 2 5 ‘ D ‘ — C S C Q U ’ 5 o B ” D C D C — C D C ( D C L C * r C t C (j Judgc (SrDn) HuN in O6\ 1 0 2004 thUd 0)09 )0O8is1urcb ccrfi med MB’
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.