Council of the City of Sydney v Goldspar Australia Pty Limited [2006] FCA 641

Council of the City of Sydney v Goldspar Australia Pty Limited [2006] FCA 641

The Court declined to make the requested O 29(2) order because no such application had been made before the liability reasons, the parties had not proceeded on the basis that such an order would be made, the breach of contract cross-claim should proceed to final judgment rather than be further fragmented, and it would be wrong to make or change the procedural rules after the event against Goldspar's opposition. The Court also declined to make declarations because interlocutory declarations are controversial and usually to be avoided.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure Ruling in a Federal Court Proceeding Involving a Breach of Contract Cross Claim / After Liability Reasons Were Delivered and Before the Damages Hearing; the Council Sought Orders Under O 29(2) or Declarations and Goldspar Opposed the Making of an O 29 Order
Outcome
The Council's request for O 29(2) orders or declarations was declined.
Legal Topics
['separate Questions Under O 29' 'interlocutory Declarations' 'interlocutory Appeal' 'breach of Contract Damages']
['practice and Procedure' 'contract Law'] ['separate Questions Under O 29' 'interlocutory Declarations' 'interlocutory Appeal' 'breach of Contract Damages']

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

Practice and Procedure Ruling in a Federal Court Proceeding Involving a Breach of Contract Cross Claim / After Liability Reasons Were Delivered and Before the Damages Hearing; the Council Sought Orders Under O 29(2) or Declarations and Goldspar Opposed the Making of an O 29 Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether orders under O 29(2) of the Federal Court Rules should be made after reasons on liability had been delivered, where the order was opposed by Goldspar' 'Whether declarations should be made to the same effect as the proposed O 29 answers' 'Whether the proceeding should be put into a form permitting an interlocutory appeal before damages were determined']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court declined to make the requested O 29(2) order because no such application had been made before the liability reasons, the parties had not proceeded on the basis that such an order would be made, the breach of contract cross-claim should proceed to final judgment rather than be further fragmented, and it would be wrong to make or change the procedural rules after the event against Goldspar's opposition. The Court also declined to make declarations because interlocutory declarations are controversial and usually to be avoided.

Court Disposition

The Council's request for O 29(2) orders or declarations was declined.

Orders

  • ['The Court declined to make declarations.' 'The Court declined to make the O 29(2) order sought.']