International Litigation Partners Pte Ltd v Chameleon Mining NL (No 2) [2011] NSWCA 141

International Litigation Partners Pte Ltd v Chameleon Mining NL (No 2) [2011] NSWCA 141

The Court found that the ASIC Instrument of 30 March 2011 did not have retrospective effect and, even if it could be considered, does not affect the orders previously made. The orders sought by the respondents are in accordance with the reasons of the Court.

Parties
Appellant: International Litigation Partners Pte Ltd; First Respondent: Chameleon Mining NL; Second Respondent: Cape Lambert Resources Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Post Judgment Consequential Orders
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs. Cross-appeal allowed with costs. Declaration that first respondent validly rescinded Funding Agreement. Consequential orders as per first respondent's short minutes of order.
Legal Topics
Powers of ASIC, Retrospective Effect of Regulatory Instruments, Consequential Orders
Corporations Powers of ASIC Retrospective Effect of Regulatory Instruments Consequential Orders

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

International Litigation Partners Pte Ltd

Appellant

Chameleon Mining NL

First Respondent

Cape Lambert Resources Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Post Judgment Consequential Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the effect of an ASIC instrument varying exemptions under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) on the Court's previous orders?
  2. 2 Can an ASIC instrument apply retrospectively to alter exemptions affecting previous conduct?

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the ASIC Instrument of 30 March 2011 did not have retrospective effect and, even if it could be considered, does not affect the orders previously made. The orders sought by the respondents are in accordance with the reasons of the Court.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs. Cross-appeal allowed with costs. Declaration that first respondent validly rescinded Funding Agreement. Consequential orders as per first respondent's short minutes of order.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Cross-appeal allowed with costs