CACHIA v WALKER & ORS [2000] NSWCA 5

CACHIA v WALKER & ORS [2000] NSWCA 5

The application to reopen was dismissed because, even assuming the Court had power to reopen its entered orders, Mr Cachia's submissions largely repeated earlier arguments, the Court had not overlooked the general prayer for further relief, his unequivocal written submissions had excluded the possibility of a new trial and formed the basis of the appeal, and it would be an intolerable injustice to allow him to present a different case after the appeal had been determined in the Court of Appeal and the High Court.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 February 2000
Procedural Posture
Motion to Reopen Appeal / Notice of Motion in the NSW Court of Appeal After Appeals Dismissed and After Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court Was Refused
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['reopening an Appeal' 'finality of Entered Orders' 'new Trial Relief' 'costs']
['appellate Procedure' 'civil Procedure'] ['reopening an Appeal' 'finality of Entered Orders' 'new Trial Relief' 'costs']

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

Motion to Reopen Appeal / Notice of Motion in the NSW Court of Appeal After Appeals Dismissed and After Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court Was Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court of Appeal should vacate its judgment and orders made on 12 June 1998 and allow the appeal or reopen and further hear it.' 'Whether the appellant could, after the appeal and High Court proceedings had been determined, change his position and seek relief by way of a new trial.' 'Whether it was necessary to decide if the Court of Appeal had power to reopen its entered orders in the circumstances.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application to reopen was dismissed because, even assuming the Court had power to reopen its entered orders, Mr Cachia's submissions largely repeated earlier arguments, the Court had not overlooked the general prayer for further relief, his unequivocal written submissions had excluded the possibility of a new trial and formed the basis of the appeal, and it would be an intolerable injustice to allow him to present a different case after the appeal had been determined in the Court of Appeal and the High Court.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Application dismissed with costs.']