Cachia v Colaco [2003] NSWLEC 364

Cachia v Colaco [2003] NSWLEC 364

There was no fresh material fact satisfying the high standard necessary for setting aside a judgment on the grounds of fraud. The allegedly withheld documents and information (1997 building approval and council correspondence) were either not new, not material in the relevant sense, or their relevance was already apparent from evidence before the original judge. The respondent was not shown to have acted unconscionably or to have deliberately misled the court. Therefore, fraud was not proved and the application must be dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Judgment on Ground of Fraud / Post Judgment, Application to Set Aside Orders of 17 May 2002
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['setting Aside Judgment' 'fraud' 'building Approval' 'inherent/implied Jurisdiction' 'evidence—fresh Material Facts']
['civil Procedure' 'equity' 'environmental Law'] ['setting Aside Judgment' 'fraud' 'building Approval' 'inherent/implied Jurisdiction' 'evidence—fresh Material Facts']

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 Set Aside Judgment on Ground of Fraud / Post Judgment, Application to Set Aside Orders of 17 May 2002

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether particulars of fraud were sufficient to set aside judgment' 'Whether applicants presented fresh material facts supporting fraud' 'Whether respondent was responsible for any fraud tainting the judgment' 'Whether solicitors for applicants ought to have exercised reasonable diligence in discovering evidence relevant to fraud']

Ratio Decidendi

There was no fresh material fact satisfying the high standard necessary for setting aside a judgment on the grounds of fraud. The allegedly withheld documents and information (1997 building approval and council correspondence) were either not new, not material in the relevant sense, or their relevance was already apparent from evidence before the original judge. The respondent was not shown to have acted unconscionably or to have deliberately misled the court. Therefore, fraud was not proved and the application must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['Application dismissed' "Applicants to pay the respondent's costs"]