Pinpoint · Judgment search

Hamilton v Meta Platforms, Inc. (Costs)

[2023] FCA 1496

Federal Court of Australia · 29 November 2023 · Official judgment

Cited by 4 indexed judgments

All Cited 4

2024: 4 citing judgments 2023 2024 2025 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. Lingard v Commonwealth Bank Officers Superannuation Corporation Pty Limited (No 2) [2024] FCA 536 Cited Federal Court of Australia · judgment
  2. Hamilton v Meta Platforms, Inc (Leave to appeal stay and costs orders) [2024] FCA 1078 Cited Federal Court of Australia · judgment
  3. Wilson v State of Victoria (Costs) [2024] FCA 1190 Cited Federal Court of Australia · judgment
  4. Naidenov (as liquidator) v Anderson, in the matter of Peach & Co Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2024] FCA 1306 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 (10)

Earliest first, with how this judgment treated each.

  1. Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc [1981] HCA 39 Cited cited 623×
  2. Southern Cross Exploration NL v Fire & All Risks Insurance Co Ltd (No 2) (1990) 21 NSWLR 200 Cited cited 26×
  3. Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11 Cited cited 2,226×
  4. BHAGAT V. ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE LIFE ASSURANCE AUSTRALIA LIMITED & ORS. [2000] NSWSC 159 Cited cited 27×
  5. Fisse v Secretary, Department of the Treasury (No 2) [2008] FCAFC 200 Cited cited 7×
  6. LFDB v SM (No 2) [2017] FCAFC 207 Cited cited 40×
  7. Northern Territory v Sangare [2019] HCA 25 Cited cited 200×
  8. El-Debel v Micheletto (Trustee) (No 2) [2021] FCAFC 146 Cited cited 11×
  9. Hamilton v Meta Platforms, Inc (Service out of Jurisdiction) [2022] FCA 681 Cited cited 7×
  10. Hamilton v Meta Platforms, Inc. [2023] FCA 1148 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.