Hammer v Sunman [1999] FCA 1570

Hammer v Sunman [1999] FCA 1570

The applicants failed to demonstrate that they had not had a proper opportunity to fully litigate their claims, or that the findings made provided a clear foundation for a new case; reopening was not justified under established principles, and the applicants' motion to set aside the earlier judgment was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 November 1999
Procedural Posture
Motion to Reopen Judgment / Post Judgment, Pre Entry
Outcome
motion dismissed
Legal Topics
['reopening Judgment' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'misleading Conduct' 'finality of Litigation']
['practice and Procedure'] ['reopening Judgment' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'misleading Conduct' 'finality of Litigation']

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 Judgment / Post Judgment, Pre Entry

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants had a proper opportunity to fully litigate claims against the respondent' 'Whether judgment should have addressed a case not made at trial' 'Whether findings made in judgment provided clear foundation for new case' 'Whether prejudice would result to respondent if motion granted']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to demonstrate that they had not had a proper opportunity to fully litigate their claims, or that the findings made provided a clear foundation for a new case; reopening was not justified under established principles, and the applicants' motion to set aside the earlier judgment was dismissed.

Court Disposition

motion dismissed

Orders

  • ["The applicants' motion filed on 17 September 1999 be dismissed." "The applicants pay the respondent's costs of the motion."]