Simple search of free and LexisNexis legal content for Australia
– legislation, cases, practical guidance, forms & precedents, journals and newsletters.
Cases
- Clarke v Hart
- Gedye v Matson
- Reynolds v Hall
- Hayward v Hayward
- Richmond's Case; Painter's Case
- Greaves v Wilson
- Patten v Poulton
- Vansittart v Vansittart
- Robinson v Preston
- R v Wells
- Whitehead v Bennett
- Lucas v Tarleton
- Ellis v Colman
- Ley v Peter
- Hill v Levey
- Goodchild v Trustees for the Poor of the Parish of St John at Hackney
- Gordon v Rae
- Blackmore v Bristol & Exeter Railway Company
- Allen v Maddock
- Haywood v Cope
- Towns v Wentworth
- Bowes v City of Toronto
- Burling v Harley & Plater
- Hybart v Parker
- Whaley v Laing
- Fenton v Hampton
- R v Mellor
- Allen v Embleton
- R v Trebilcock
- Unity Joint Stock Mutual Banking Association v King
- Bowes v Foster
- Soar v Foster
- Von Frantzius, In re
- Johnson, In the Goods of
- Reynolds v Godlee
- Minshull v Oakes
- Edmonds v Eastwood
- Hollis v Marshall
- Brown v Brown
- R v Lopez
- Earl of Talbott v Hope Scott
- Southampton & Itchin Bridge Co v Southampton Local Board of Health
- Munro v Butt
- Alderson v White
- Lawton v Elmore
- Holmes v Mackrell
- Moor v Roberts
- Perry-Herrick v Attwood
- Holgate v Jennings
- Porter's Trusts, Re
- Ditcher v Denison
- Simmons v Taylor
- Russell's Patents, Re
- R v Essex
- Collen v Wright
- Hodgkinson v Fernie
- Strother v Dutton
- Boulton v Jones
- Gibson v Doeg
- Henry v Great Northern Railway Co
- Blackwell v England
- Dixon v Gayfere
- Egerton v Massey
- Smith v Lakeman
- Wearing v Ellis
- Furness v Meek
- Churchyard v Watkins
- Wheaton v Graham
- R v Wake
- Hawkins v Carbines
- Clements v Hall
- Ernest v Nicholls
- Smith v Osborne
- Childers v Childers
- Bellamy v Sabine
- Davey & Smith v Durrant
- Lefevre v Freeland
- Carter v Carter
- Salusbury v Denton
- Sympson v Prothero
- R v Jackson
- Booth v Alington
- Fielding v Preston
- Lockhart v Reilly
- Stainton v Carron Co
- Sreemutty Soorjeemoney Dosses v Denobundoo Mullick
- Holmes v Eastern Counties Railway Co
- South Eastern Railway Co v Jortin
- Jarrold v Houlston
- Whaley v Laing
- Attorney-General v Bushby
- Jones v Provincial Insurance Company
- Gee v Smart
- Sutton v Sadler
- Fyfe v Arbuthnot
- Cahill v Dawson
- Mansell v R
- Oldershaw v King
- Labouchere v Tupper
- Stedman v Smith
- Ross v Grigor
- R v City of Rochester
- Delaney v Fox
- Innes v Mitchell
- Roberts v Aulton
- Sidwell v Mason
- Sheehy v Professional Life Assurance Co
- Pearl v Deacon
- Wright's Trusts, In re
- Farley v Turner
- Stocker v Wedderburn
- Aldridge v Johnson
- Moreland v Richardson
- Hartley v Ponsonby
- Baker, Re
- Smith v Harwich Corporation
- Cockerell v Aucompte
- Barrow v Wadkin
- Jones v Williams
- Attorney-General v Hollingworth
- Churchward v Ford
- Corley v Lord Stafford
- Andrews v Hawley
- Gelen v Hall
- Wickens v Steel
- Clerk v Laurie
- Firefly, The
- Cooke, Re; Ex parte Bland
- R v Dayman
- Jones v Farrell
- Orchard v Simpson
- H v W
- Penny & South Eastern Railway Co, In re
- Eyre v Monro
- Meux v Lloyd
- R v Cockburn
- Perry v Simpson
- Smith v Battams
- Bartlett v Bartlett
- Sleight v Lawson
- Carey v Carey
- Devaynes v Robinson
- Knight v Gravesend & Milton Waterworks Co
- Agnew v Pope
- Campbell v Campbell
- Smith v Guardians Churchwardens and Overseers of the Poor of the Parish of Birmingham
- Pain v Coombs
- Morris, In re
- Forshaw v Higginson
- Tanner v Heard
- Grey v Pearson
- Potter v Edwards
- Gully v Cregoe
- Stourton v Stourton
- Nokes v Fish
- Bennett's Trust, In re
- Scott v Sandford
- Fellows v Blacksmith
- British Sugar Refining Co & Joint Stock Companies Act 1856, In re
- Hope v Hope
- Oliver v Memphis Insurance Company
- Brooker v Brooker
- Pooley v Harradine
- Moffett v Bates
- Hicks v Newport Abergavenny & Hereford Railway Co
- Wightman v Wheelton
- Manser v Dix
- Stimson v Hall
- Stafford v Fiddon
- Martyn v Williams
- Croockewit v Fletcher
- R v Sharpe
- R v Gaylor
- Daniell v Official Manager of Royal British Bank
- Powis v Harding
- Gedye, Re
- Henderson v Royal British Bank
- Lonsdale, Earl of v Countess of Berchtoldt
- Inflexible HMS, Re
- R v Paynter
- Perens v Johnston
- Beck & Jackson, In re
- Admiral Boxer, The
- Martin v Roe
- Cumberledge v Lawson
- Davison v Duncan
- Devoy v Devoy
- Sampson v Hoddinott
- Smith v Woodfine
- Watson v Eales
- Cox v Leach
- Otter v Lord Vaux
- Wearing v Wearing
- Holmes v Penney
- Penny v Avison
- Cowdell v Neale
- Barnard v Hunter
- Begley v Cook
- Morisse v Royal British Bank
- Spry v Porter