Michael Thomson & anor v Societe Generale Australia Limited & anor (No. 2) [2006] NSWIRComm 227

Michael Thomson & anor v Societe Generale Australia Limited & anor (No. 2) [2006] NSWIRComm 227

The applicants' motion to reopen was dismissed because they had multiple opportunities to seek such orders or cross-examine on the late-produced draft contract, made a tactical decision not to do so, delayed their application, and failed to demonstrate that reopening would affect the outcome. The policy in favour of finality and the availability of appeal also militated against reopening the case.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Application to Reopen Evidence in Industrial Relations Proceedings / Post Judgment, Interlocutory Motion
Outcome
Application to reopen dismissed; costs awarded to respondents; proceedings stood over for resolution of monetary issue.
Legal Topics
['application to Reopen Evidence' 'contract Variation' 'late Disclosure of Documents' 'costs Orders']
['industrial Relations'] ['application to Reopen Evidence' 'contract Variation' 'late Disclosure of Documents' 'costs Orders']

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

Application to Reopen Evidence in Industrial Relations Proceedings / Post Judgment, Interlocutory Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants should be granted leave to reopen evidence due to late disclosure of a draft contract document' 'Whether there was procedural unfairness resulting from the late production of the document' 'Whether the reopening would be likely to affect the outcome of the substantive decision']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants' motion to reopen was dismissed because they had multiple opportunities to seek such orders or cross-examine on the late-produced draft contract, made a tactical decision not to do so, delayed their application, and failed to demonstrate that reopening would affect the outcome. The policy in favour of finality and the availability of appeal also militated against reopening the case.

Court Disposition

Application to reopen dismissed; costs awarded to respondents; proceedings stood over for resolution of monetary issue.

Orders

  • ["The applicants' notice of motion filed 1 June 2006 is dismissed." "The applicants are to pay the respondents' costs of the motion in an amount assessed, in default of agreement." 'Otherwise, the proceedings are stood over in the manner referred to in Order (2) of the reasons for judgment of 21 March 2006.']