Hopper v Campbell [2016] NSWCA 371

Hopper v Campbell [2016] NSWCA 371

The appeal failed because the more limited contract now relied on was not pleaded, argued or dealt with at first instance; it was not open to the primary judge to find that agreement. The appellant was not permitted to raise that case for the first time on appeal because it raised contestable factual issues that could possibly have been met by evidence below, including the legal characterisation of the interim arrangements, the character of quarterly payments, and whether any arrangement continued after trading stopped.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning Rejection of Proofs of Debt in the Liquidation of MF Global Australia Ltd (in Liq) / Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales Decision Dismissing Proceedings Under S 1321 of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['formation of Contract' 'employment Remuneration and Bonus Entitlements' 'proofs of Debt in Liquidation' 'pleadings' 'new Point on Appeal' 'long Service Leave' 'redundancy Pay']
['contract Law' 'corporations Law' 'employment Law' 'appellate Procedure'] ['formation of Contract' 'employment Remuneration and Bonus Entitlements' 'proofs of Debt in Liquidation' 'pleadings' 'new Point on Appeal' 'long Service Leave' 'redundancy Pay']

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

Appeal Concerning Rejection of Proofs of Debt in the Liquidation of MF Global Australia Ltd (in Liq) / Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales Decision Dismissing Proceedings Under S 1321 of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appellant's more limited contract claim was pleaded or argued at first instance and wrongly rejected by the primary judge." 'Whether the appellant should be permitted to pursue the more limited contract claim for the first time on appeal.' 'If the more limited contract claim could be made, whether such a contract existed and what remuneration, bonus, long service leave and redundancy entitlements followed.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the more limited contract now relied on was not pleaded, argued or dealt with at first instance; it was not open to the primary judge to find that agreement. The appellant was not permitted to raise that case for the first time on appeal because it raised contestable factual issues that could possibly have been met by evidence below, including the legal characterisation of the interim arrangements, the character of quarterly payments, and whether any arrangement continued after trading stopped.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']