Hillam v Ample Source International Limited (No 3) [2012] FCAFC 88

Hillam v Ample Source International Limited (No 3) [2012] FCAFC 88

The proposed further evidence lacked sufficient cogency and was either available or could have been tested at trial; the acquisition offer was speculative and did not provide a realistic prospect of generating $25 million by 15 May 2012. Leave to adduce further evidence is refused.

Parties
First Appellant: John Hillam; Second Appellant: Sarobol Teeranukul; First Respondent: Ample Source International Limited; Second Respondent: Bonython Metals Group Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application to Adduce Further Evidence at Hearing of Appeal
Outcome
The appellants' application for leave to adduce further evidence is rejected.
Legal Topics
Leave to Adduce Further Evidence on Appeal, Reopening at First Instance, Winding Up of Company
Civil Procedure Leave to Adduce Further Evidence on Appeal Reopening at First Instance Winding Up of Company

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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Hillam

First Appellant

Sarobol Teeranukul

Second Appellant

Ample Source International Limited

First Respondent

Bonython Metals Group Pty Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application to Adduce Further Evidence at Hearing of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to adduce further evidence on appeal
  2. 2 Relevance and cogency of proposed fresh evidence
  3. 3 Whether appellants were wrongly refused leave to reopen at first instance

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed further evidence lacked sufficient cogency and was either available or could have been tested at trial; the acquisition offer was speculative and did not provide a realistic prospect of generating $25 million by 15 May 2012. Leave to adduce further evidence is refused.

Court Disposition

The appellants' application for leave to adduce further evidence is rejected.

Orders

  • The appellants' application for leave to adduce further evidence on the hearing of the appeal be rejected.