The Inns of court and chancery,

Mode of access: Internet.

The Law reports. Cases determined by the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice, and by the Chief Judge in Bankruptcy, and by the Court of Appeal on appeal from the Chancery Division and the Chief Judge, and in lunacy.

Edited by G.W. Hemming.

Reports of cases at law and in chancery, decided by the Supreme court of Ohio, during the years 1831, 1832, 1833, 1834. Taken from original minutes.

Mode of access: Internet.

Reports of cases in chancery, argued and determined in the Court of appeals and Court of errors of South-Carolina, from December, 1838, to May, 1839, both inclusive.

Spine title: So. Carolina law & equity reports. Book 55. Rice's Equity. 1838-1839.

Arthur F. Naylor, et als., Defendants-Respondents : civil action on appeal from final judgment of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division - Burlington County. Sat below: Goldmann, J. S. C. Appendix to respondents' brief.

At head of title: Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division - Docket no. A-215-53.

Reports of decisions in the Supreme court of British Guiana ... and in the West Indian court of appeal

Editors: 19 -1921, L.C. Dalton; 1922, L.C. Dalton, S.J. Van Sertima; 1923, S.J. Van Sertima; 1924, E.M. Duke; 1925, E.M. Duke, S.J. Van Sertima; 1926-1930, S.J. Van Sertime; 1931, E.M. Duke

The statute law of Kentucky; with notes, prælections, and observations on the public acts. Comprehending also, the laws of Virginia and acts of Parliament in force in this commonwealth; the charter of Virginia, the federal and state constitutions, and so much of the King of England's proclamation in 1763, as relates to the titles to land in Kentucky. Together with a table of reference to the cases adjudicated in the Court of appeals ...

Imprint varies: v. 2-3, Frankfort, (Ken.) Printed for William Hunter, by Johnston & Pleasants. 1810-1811.--v. 4, Frankfort, (Ken.) Printed for William Hunter, by Robert Johnston. 1814.--v. 5, Frankfort, (Ken.) Printed for Butler & Wood. 1819.

Reports of cases at law and in equity argued and determined in the Supreme Court of Arkansas ...

Mode of access: Internet.

Report of the Committee appointed by order of the Board, dated 30th June, 1832 : to inquire into the circumstances connected with Mr Bayley's publication of the calendars of the proceedings in Chancery and his charges for the same.

Limited edition; on t.p.: "No. 14. The Right Honourable Lord Dover."

The inherent equitable jurisdiction and the plenary power of the Supreme Court of New South Wales to order the winding up of companies

Not all companies in Australia are amenable to a winding up order pursuant to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The Supreme Court of New South Wales has previously dealt with such winding up applications by apparently focusing on the inherent jurisdiction of the court to consider whether the court has jurisdiction to firstly consider the winding up application. This article proposes an original alternative paradigm: the plenary power provided to the court by s 23 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) can be utilised to initially attract the jurisdiction of the court and subsequently the inherent jurisdiction specifically utilising the equitable “just and equitable” ground is available to the court to consider and make such a winding up order if appropriate. Variation of such a paradigm may also be available to the court when considering the inherent jurisdiction in relation to corporation matters more generally.

Queensland Court of Appeal opines on the meaning of 'material prejudice'

The decision of Wilson J in Wilson v Mirvac Queensland Pty Ltd was the subject of an article in an earlier edition of this journal. At that time, it was foreshadowed that the decision was to be taken on appeal. The decision of the Court of Appeal in Mirvac Queensland Pty Ltd v Wilson is considered in this article.

Waiver in the Court of Appeal

The vagaries inherent in the operation of special conditions in land sale contracts have commonly required judicial interpretation. A further illustration is provided by the recent decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal (Jerrard, Keane JJA and Philip McMurdo J) in Donaldson and Donaldson v Bexton and Bexton [2006] QCA 559.

Practice and procedure : a recent Court of Appeal case examines the meaning of 'third party payer' in terms of Part 3.4 of the Legal Profession Act 2007.

In Legal Services Commissioner v Wright [2010] QCA 321 the Queensland Court of Appeal allowed an appeal from the first instance decision. The decision involved the construction of “third party payer” in Part 3.4 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld).

District Court of Queensland Act 1968 s 68 : jurisdiction in pre-proceedings applications under Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002

In Woolworths Ltd v Graham [2007] QDC 301 Searles DCJ struck out a pre-proceedings application under the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld)on the basis that the material before the Court was not sufficient to attract the jurisdiction of the District Court.The decision serves more broadly as a reminder that the District Court is an inferior court of defined and limited jurisdiction and that any proceedings brought in it must be demonstrably within the jurisdiction conferred on that court by legislation.