Pinpoint · Judgment search

Gall v Domino's Pizza Enterprises Limited (No 3)

[2022] FCA 1330

Federal Court of Australia · 7 November 2022 · Official judgment

Cited by 0 indexed judgments

No indexed judgment cites this case yet.

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.

Authorities cited (14)

Earliest first, with how this judgment treated each.

  1. Mann v Carnell [1999] HCA 66 Cited cited 514×
  2. Kennedy v Wallace [2004] FCAFC 337 Applied or followed cited 89×
  3. Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs v Cathay Pacific Airways Limited [2009] FCAFC 105 Cited cited 17×
  4. Areva NC (Australia) Pty Ltd v Summit Resources (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] WASC 67 Applied or followed cited 4×
  5. Minetec Pty Ltd v Frost [2011] WASC 145 Applied or followed
  6. Hancock v Rinehart (Privilege) [2016] NSWSC 12 Cited cited 82×
  7. Gall v Domino's Pizza Enterprises Limited [2019] FCA 1799 Applied or followed cited 3×
  8. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v NSW Ports Operations Hold Co Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1232 Cited cited 14×
  9. Esso Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Workers Union (No 3) [2020] FCA 316 Cited cited 2×
  10. Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v Citigroup Global Markets Australia Pty Limited (No 3 - privilege claims) [2021] FCA 1208 Cited cited 3×
  11. Robson as former trustee of the estate of Samsakopoulos v Body Corporate for Sanderling at Kings Beach CTS 2942 [2021] FCAFC 143 Cited cited 26×
  12. Bechara v Bates [2021] FCAFC 34 Cited cited 65×
  13. Commissioner of Taxation v PricewaterhouseCoopers [2022] FCA 278 Applied or followed cited 6×
  14. [2022] WASC 245 Cited
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.