Judgment · High Court · 2011
Judgment
” C ‘ ) a ) a ) a . 4 . ) a ) a , ) a ) a . f “ “ ‘ — a : ) a ) a . . . f i . ) a ) a a “ ’ a ) C ’ a D G D G D C - a m e aH ) a - : L D L D a : ) a ) a a . . f i “ “ ) a C C . ) a ) C ) a 5 2 J a - . f ‘ < C C D 5 2 ’ a ’ a . C ‘ ) a ) a : ) a ” ) a , 5 2 ’ 5 2 i - a , ) a ) a C ‘ ) a L D ) a C D . . ) a j C C . . . C a ) t ’ f i “ i H C D ) a D G . ” a ) a C D f i < ( “ . . a ) a ) a ) a 5 2 ; : 9 - ) a H ) a ‘ ) C ) C D ) C ) C — a — C C - ) C ( ‘ - . ) C ) C a e ( D C , 4 9 a ’ . ) 2 ) C ) ) a C C D ) C S E m 4 ( - C ) 4 ) ) C C C . e e 0 e m i D . 0 ) C D C m m : 7 ‘ — m c . . m i C ) C ) C e m . ( e m ‘ ‘ a ‘ . 4 ( ) ) C . C — a ) C m m o e - ) C ) C . m c t 5 — ( ) C ) C i l e ’ i D m c - a m m a . ) C ) C C * 4 m c . ) C 4 ) C ) C c — c c ) C . 9 . 4 ( m c m — ) ) 2 a a 0 a - - ) C ) C m e ) C C < ) C m c ) oc C c _ i - ) ) C C 9 - 4 ( a ) C : . c ) C ma—C c ) C O i D — c _ c c _ c j - m c e m < ) aC C ) ) C 4 - D H C C C ) m m u c a r ’ e m — 4 ( : ) C a c ) C i D a m m 4 5 a a i - D ) C ) C D a m c ) C a D C — ‘ . < D C m c ’ C m J - D C H C D ( i a . e a D C a — e m ) C m m i D - 4 4 ) C D P - _ c ) C ) C 5 4 a ) C 1 - Z o c ) C ) C ) C a ) C o C C . 4 ( D C 4 ( 9 S — a m c 5 ( : i — D 4 ( r m ‘ “ m 0 ) C . e m i i D D a - 4 ( C m m 4 ( a 2 2 4 ( — . I D D D S a H : 4 ( C C L — 4 ( ) C ) C C C — i D a m m ’ 4 ( \ e c _ c ) C . 2 ) C D C ) C : 4 ( 5 4 ( S E i ) D C ) a C a e a m r C C
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.