Pinpoint · Judgment search

Bayles by his litigation representative Bayles v Nationwide News Pty Limited (No 3)

[2020] FCA 1397

Federal Court of Australia · 28 September 2020 · Official judgment

Cited by 3 indexed judgments

All Cited 3

2023: 2 citing judgments 2024: 1 citing judgment 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. Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Ferratum Australia Pty Limited (in liq) [2023] FCA 1043 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 4× · judgment
  2. Warren v Chief Executive Officer, Services Australia [2023] FCA 1337 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 1× · judgment
  3. Australian Securities and Investments Commission v NGS Crypto Pty Ltd (No 4) [2024] FCA 986 Cited Federal Court of Australia · 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 (6)

Earliest first, with how this judgment treated each.

  1. Australian Broadcasting Commission v Parish (1980) 29 ALR 228 Cited cited 74×
  2. Reynolds v JP Morgan Administrative Services Australia Limited (No 2) [2011] FCA 489 Cited cited 17×
  3. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Air New Zealand Limited (No 12) [2013] FCA 533 Cited cited 33×
  4. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Valve Corporation (No 5) [2016] FCA 741 Cited cited 56×
  5. Bayles by his litigation representative Bayles v Nationwide News Pty Limited (No 2) [2020] FCA 1393 Cited
  6. C7A/2017 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (No 2) [2020] FCAFC 70 Cited cited 14×
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.