F.Y.D Investments Pty Ltd v Promptair Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 1097

F.Y.D Investments Pty Ltd v Promptair Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 1097

The interests of justice favoured reopening because the application was made before judgment was delivered, the new material concerned a discrete but substantial aspect of the Applicants' claimed loss, the omission resulted from oversight by the Applicants' trial representatives rather than a tactical decision, Promptair had not shown irremediable prejudice beyond costs and delay, and refusal could deprive the Applicants of a significant part of their claim while giving Promptair a windfall from counsel's oversight.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application to Reopen Case in Commercial and Corporations Proceeding / After Trial Concluded and Judgment Reserved, Before Delivery of Judgment
Outcome
Interlocutory application allowed; Applicants permitted to reopen their case and withdraw the concession made by trial counsel; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['application to Reopen a Case' 'further Evidence After Judgment Reserved' 'oversight of Counsel' 'interests of Justice' 'overarching Purpose Under the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth)']
['practice and Procedure' 'commercial and Corporations' 'commercial Contracts'] ['application to Reopen a Case' 'further Evidence After Judgment Reserved' 'oversight of Counsel' 'interests of Justice' 'overarching Purpose Under the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth)']

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

Interlocutory Application to Reopen Case in Commercial and Corporations Proceeding / After Trial Concluded and Judgment Reserved, Before Delivery of Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Applicants should be granted leave to reopen their case after judgment had been reserved but before judgment was delivered.' 'Whether the Applicants should be permitted to adduce further evidence and make submissions concerning payments made by FYD in respect of amounts Kyren sought to recover.' 'Whether the Applicants should be permitted to withdraw the concession that FYD was not a necessary party.' "Whether any prejudice to Promptair, delay, costs, or the interests of finality outweighed the Applicants' interest in reopening."]

Ratio Decidendi

The interests of justice favoured reopening because the application was made before judgment was delivered, the new material concerned a discrete but substantial aspect of the Applicants' claimed loss, the omission resulted from oversight by the Applicants' trial representatives rather than a tactical decision, Promptair had not shown irremediable prejudice beyond costs and delay, and refusal could deprive the Applicants of a significant part of their claim while giving Promptair a windfall from counsel's oversight.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory application allowed; Applicants permitted to reopen their case and withdraw the concession made by trial counsel; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['The interlocutory application filed on 27 June 2017, by which the Applicants seek leave to reopen their case, is allowed.' 'The parties are, by Monday 25 September 2017, to provide to the Court minutes of the orders which they together or individually propose to give effect to the judgment delivered on 15...