Simple search of free and LexisNexis legal content for Australia
– legislation, cases, practical guidance, forms & precedents, journals and newsletters.
Cases
- Harrison v Southcote
- Lord Montague v Dudman
- Barwell v Parker
- Worsley v Earl of Granville
- Attorney-General v Cock
- Rigden v Vallier
- Wyldman, Ex parte
- Marlborough, Duke of v Lord Godolphin
- Warner v Baynes
- Peat v Chapman
- Attorney-General v Whorwood
- Grigby v Cox
- Peirs v Peirs
- Williamson v Codrington
- Cole v Gibson
- Bell v Cundall
- Green v Rutherforth
- Penn v Lord Baltimore
- Plummer v May
- Longuet v Scawen
- Robinson v Robinson
- Earl of Chesterfield v Janssen
- Ryall v Rowles
- Pyot v Pyot
- Row v Dawson
- Durour v Motteax
- Debenham v Ox
- Door v Gearey
- Hearle v Greenbank & Andrew
- Attorney-General v Andrews
- Attorney-General v Andrews
- Jackson v Jackson
- Attorney-General v Scott
- Flyn & Field, Re; Ex parte Matthews
- Bishop v Church
- Bagshaw v Spencer
- Popham v Aylesbury
- Barnesly v Powell
- Randal v Cockran
- Harvey v Ashley
- Attorney-General v Talbot
- Mendes v Mendes
- Stiles v Cowper
- Sibthorp v Moxom
- Bulstrode v Bradley
- Williamson v Henshaw
- City of London v Nash
- Mackintosh v Ogilvie
- Stephens v Trueman
- Joynes v Statham
- Buxton v Lister
- Reynish v Martin
- Lyon v Chandos
- Lawley v Hooper
- Winsmore v Greenbank
- Mead v Orrery
- Pollexfen v Moore
- Sherman v Collins
- Attorney-General v Baliol College
- Goring v Nash
- Crisp, Ex parte
- Barnsley, Ex parte
- Attorney-General v Milner
- Addlington v Cann
- Wiltshire v Smith
- Beard v Beard
- Gage v Bulkeley
- Lawton v Lawton
- Annesley v Earl of Anglesea
- Lacon v Mertins
- Bromley v Goodere
- Wilson, Ex parte
- Chauncy v Graydon
- Sturt v Mellish
- Wellington v Mackintosh
- Saddlers Company v Badcock
- Annesley v Earl of Anglesea
- Stevens v Dethick
- Scott v Surman
- Woodhouse v Hoskins
- Pullen v Ready
- Baker v Hart
- Blanchard v Hill
- Read & Huggonson, Re; sub nom Roach v Farvan, Dick
- Lanoy v Duke & Duchess of Athol
- Robinson v Cummings
- Charitable Corporation v Sutton
- Chartibale Corporation v Sutton
- Chauncey v Tahourden
- Partriche v Powlet
- Cartwright v Pultney
- Shepherd v Titley
- Woodhouse v Shepley
- Smith v Packhurst
- Trebec v Keith
- Marshall v Blew
- Lowther v Condon
- Baskerville v Baskerville
- Willis v Jernegan
- Roe d Fulham v Wickett
- Walker v Walker
- Ingram v Ingram
- Attorney-General v Pearce
- East India Co v Vincent
- Wallis v Hodgeson
- Patriche v Powlet
- Morret v Paske
- Halsam, Ex parte
- Richards v Syms
- Wheeler v Horne
- Pembroke v Thorpe
- Cottington v Fletcher
- Lloyd v Spillet
- Usborne v Usborne
- Gyles v Wilcox
- Heathe v Heathe
- Fell v Lutwidge
- Steed v Whitaker
- Motteux v Governor & Co of London Assurance
- Stapilton v Stapilton
- Whitton v Russell
- Van v Clark
- Harding v Glyn
- Acherley v Vernon
- Ryall v Ryall
- Green v Smith
- Boycot v Cotton
- Brandlyn v Ord
- Nugent v Gifford
- Hall v Terry
- Hervey v Aston
- Casburne v Scarfe
- Hill v Bishop of London
- York, Mayor of v Pilkington
- Smith v Richardson
- Graves v Budgel
- Angus v Angus
- Twiss v Massey
- Hutchins v Lee
- Newstead v Searles
- London Assurance Co v Johnson
- Clerk v Wright
- Morris v Burroughs
- Casburne v Inglis & Scarfe
- Stephens v Stephens
- Smith v Read
- Hudson v Hudson
- Bellamy v Burrow
- Lutkins v Leigh
- Bosanquett v Dashwood
- Lansdown v Lansdown
- Steignes v Steignes
- Hill v Bissel
- Lynch v Dalzell
- Scattergood v Harrison
- Bettesworth v Dean & Chapter of St Paul's London
- Keech v Sandford
- Burton v Slattery
- Prowse v Foot
- Arnold's Case
- Case 15 - Anonymous
- R v Journeymen - Taylors of Cambridge
- Maxwell v Lady Mountacute
- Seymour v Rapier
- Elie v Osborne
- Birne v Hartpole
- Harman v Vanhatton
- Attorney-General v Norstedt
- Booth v Earl of Warrington
- Jones v Westcombe
- Carter v Bletsoe
- Herne v Herne
- Noys v Mordaunt
- Noyes v Mordaunt
- Jennings v Ward
- Adams v Buckland
- Ramsden v Langley
- R v Lindsay
- Ashby v White
- Richardson v Sydenham
- Earl of Huntingdon v Countess Dowager of Huntingdon
- Bruen v Bruen
- Earl of Huntington v Countess Dowager of Huntington
- Skinner v Upshaw
- Tovey v Young
- London, City of v Richmond
- Kidds Case, Re
- Smith v Bruning
- Moyse v Gyles
- Lawrence v Lawrence
- Freind's Case, Re
- Falkand (Viscount) v Bertie
- Harcourt v Fox
- Holles v Wyse
- Goddart v Garrett
- Duffield v Smith
- Bainham v Manning
- Cecil v Earl of Salisbury
- Baker v White
- Chapman v Derby