BHP Steel (JLA) Pty Ltd v Khan (No 2) [2001] NSWCA 269

BHP Steel (JLA) Pty Ltd v Khan (No 2) [2001] NSWCA 269

Because the District Court judgment under which the $250,000 was paid had been set aside, the respondent had no existing right to retain any of that money until damages were ascertained at the new trial. The limitation of the new trial to damages did not defeat the appellant's entitlement to restitution with interest, since damages were at large and it could not be said that the respondent would recover at least $250,000.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 August 2001
Procedural Posture
Quantum Appeal From a District Court Judgment in a Personal Injury Damages Claim; Application for Restitution of Money Paid Under the Set Aside Judgment / Application Decided on Written Submissions After the Court of Appeal Set Aside the District Court Judgment and Ordered a New Trial Limited to Assessment of Damages
Outcome
Judgment for the appellant for $267,812; appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the application.
Legal Topics
['money Paid Under Judgment' 'judgment Set Aside on Appeal' 'new Trial Limited to Damages' 'repayment With Interest' 'costs of Separate Application']
['restitution' 'civil Procedure' 'personal Injury Damages'] ['money Paid Under Judgment' 'judgment Set Aside on Appeal' 'new Trial Limited to Damages' 'repayment With Interest' 'costs of Separate Application']

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

Quantum Appeal From a District Court Judgment in a Personal Injury Damages Claim; Application for Restitution of Money Paid Under the Set Aside Judgment / Application Decided on Written Submissions After the Court of Appeal Set Aside the District Court Judgment and Ordered a New Trial Limited to Assessment of Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellant was entitled to repayment with interest of money paid to the respondent under a District Court judgment that had been set aside on appeal.' 'Whether restitution should be refused or distinguished because liability remained and the new trial was limited to assessment of damages.' 'Whether execution of any repayment order should be stayed pending the new trial.' 'Who should pay the costs of the application for repayment.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the District Court judgment under which the $250,000 was paid had been set aside, the respondent had no existing right to retain any of that money until damages were ascertained at the new trial. The limitation of the new trial to damages did not defeat the appellant's entitlement to restitution with interest, since damages were at large and it could not be said that the respondent would recover at least $250,000.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the appellant for $267,812; appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the application.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the appellant for $267,812.' "Appellant pay the respondent's costs of the application."]