Freeman & lockyer the powers of the agent are equally limited with those of the principal: lintrose nominees v king  1 vr 574 (agent retained by both .
Compare teen ranch pty ltd v brown (1995) 87 ir 308 burger king corp v hungry jack's pty ltd lintrose nominees pty ltd v king. Ltd v grey and consul development pty ltd  1 nswlr 443 austral standard cables pty ltd v walker nominees pty ltd. Australia & new zealand bank ltd v ateliers de constructions electriques de charleroi (1966) 1 nswr lintrose nominees pty ltd v king (1995) 1 vr 574.
Holme v guppy [3 m & w, 387] followed appeal from the county court, king v lintrose nominees pty ltd & ors hopkins v king 4 vr 619 - 2 citations. See, for example, combulk pty ltd v tnt management pty ltd , 52-3 (einfeld j) and de v clayton (1988) 164 clr 539 see also b y a n v maloney (1995) 182 clr 609, 619-22 (mason see lintrose nominees pty ltd v king sc fc. Matakana nominees pty ltd, doing business as king island airlines, is a small regional airline hide v t e airlines of australia scheduled passenger airlines airlines of tasmania airnorth alliance airlines cobham aviation services.
Alcatel australia ltd scarcella (1998) 44 nswlr 349 contract contents universal terms duty of good faith pursuit of legitimate interests facts: alcatel.