Kemppi v Adani Mining Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 94

Kemppi v Adani Mining Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 94

The application to amend was refused because the appellants had admitted at trial that the chief executive officer had authority to act, gave no satisfactory explanation for not raising the Quall point earlier, and the situation was indistinguishable from Coulton v Holcombe, where parties are bound by trial conduct and new issues involving public law should not be raised on appeal without opportunity for factual contest and proper explanation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Interlocutory Application Dismissed
Outcome
Application to amend dismissed with costs to respondents.
Legal Topics
['amendment of Notice of Appeal' 'application to Withdraw Admission' 'representative Body Certification Under Native Title Act' 'appellate Discretion on Amendments']
['native Title' 'appeal and New Trial'] ['amendment of Notice of Appeal' 'application to Withdraw Admission' 'representative Body Certification Under Native Title Act' 'appellate Discretion on Amendments']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Interlocutory Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether to allow amendment of the notice of appeal and statement of claim to raise a new issue after a recent Full Court decision' 'Whether appellants can withdraw admission regarding authority of chief executive officer after trial']

Ratio Decidendi

The application to amend was refused because the appellants had admitted at trial that the chief executive officer had authority to act, gave no satisfactory explanation for not raising the Quall point earlier, and the situation was indistinguishable from Coulton v Holcombe, where parties are bound by trial conduct and new issues involving public law should not be raised on appeal without opportunity for factual contest and proper explanation.

Court Disposition

Application to amend dismissed with costs to respondents.

Orders

  • ['The interlocutory application made on 23 May 2019 be dismissed.' "The appellants pay the respondents' costs of the interlocutory application."]