Pinpoint · Judgment search

Frigger v Banning

[2016] FCA 359

Federal Court of Australia · 13 April 2016 · Official judgment

Cited by 8 indexed judgments

All Applied or followed 1 Cited 7

2016: 1 citing judgment 2017: 2 citing judgments 2018: 2 citing judgments 2019: 2 citing judgments 2023: 1 citing judgment 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026
citing judgments per year of which distinguished, doubted, not followed or overruled · line marks the decision

Sort: Oldest first Newest first Most cited

  1. Frigger v Banning (No 2) [2016] FCA 749 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 3× · judgment
  2. Frigger v Banning (No 4) [2017] FCA 900 Cited Federal Court of Australia · judgment
  3. Frigger v Banning [2017] FCA 1589 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 1× · judgment
  4. Frigger, in the matter of Computer Accounting & Tax Pty Ltd (in Liq) (No 2) [2018] FCA 612 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 8× · judgment
  5. Frigger v Banning (No 6) [2018] FCA 787 Applied or followed Federal Court of Australia · judgment
  6. Frigger v Kitay [2019] FCA 624 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 10× · judgment
  7. Frigger v Banning (No 8) [2019] FCA 1319 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 9× · judgment
  8. Frigger v Banning (No 13) [2023] FCA 923 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 5× · judgment

Tree of authority

Built on

The authorities this case relies on, earliest first, and the authorities those relied on. Open a branch to go further back.

Built upon

Later cases citing this one, in order of decision, and the cases citing them in turn. The most cited are shown at each level.

Authorities cited (14)

Earliest first, with how this judgment treated each.

  1. Equity Access Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation [1989] FCA 361 Cited cited 8×
  2. Computer Accounting and Tax Pty Ltd v Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd [2008] WASC 133 Cited cited 6×
  3. Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd and Another v Computer Accounting and Tax Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] WASCA 183 Cited cited 6×
  4. Computer Accounting & Tax Pty Ltd v Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd & Anor [2010] HCATrans 139 Cited
  5. Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd v Computer Accounting and Tax Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] WASC 113 Cited cited 3×
  6. Computer Accounting & Tax Pty Ltd v Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd [2010] WASC 2 Cited cited 4×
  7. Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd v Computer Accounting and Tax Pty Ltd [2010] WASC 38 Cited cited 5×
  8. Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd (administrator appointed) v Computer Accounting and Tax Pty Ltd (No 3) [2010] WASC 93 Cited cited 5×
  9. Computer Accounting and Tax Pty Ltd v Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd and Another (No 5) [2012] WASC 382 Cited cited 3×
  10. Holbrook v Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd [2012] WASC 444 Cited cited 5×
  11. Mecrus Pty Ltd v Industrial Energy Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 103 Cited cited 32×
  12. Southern Equity Pty Ltd v Timevale Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 1364 Cited cited 3×
  13. Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd v Computer Accounting and Tax Pty Ltd (No 4) [2015] WASCA 253 Cited cited 4×
  14. Frigger v Kitay [2016] WASC 60 Cited cited 2×
How the citator works

Citations are read from the text of each indexed judgment. A report citation written alongside a neutral citation, such as [2008] HCA 9; (2008) 234 CLR 50, teaches the citator that both name the same case, so later citations by either are counted together.

Treatment is read from the words in the sentence that cites the case: overruled or disapproved; not followed or declined to follow; distinguished or distinguishable; doubted; applied, followed or adopted. Anything else is cited. It is a guide to which judgments to read, not a judicial history: a judgment that discusses a case at length without one of those words is shown as citing it, and one mentioning several cases in a sentence may attach the word to all of them.

Only judgments in this index are counted, mostly the High Court, the Federal Court and New South Wales courts and tribunals since 2006. Earlier cases appear as authorities but their own authorities are unknown, so a tree ends there. Check a treatment by reading the passage before relying on it.

Judgment text is from the Open Australian Legal Corpus (Isaacus, CC BY 4.0) and the courts’ own websites. Each judgment links to its official version: read it before relying on anything here.