Koolan Iron Ore Pty Ltd v Infrassure Ltd (No 3) [2024] FCA 643

Koolan Iron Ore Pty Ltd v Infrassure Ltd (No 3) [2024] FCA 643

Leave to reopen was refused because Koolan sought to advance a new case with a different basis for calculating the indemnity, which had not previously been put. No exceptional circumstances, inadvertence, or misapprehension were identified. The overriding interests of justice and finality in litigation weighed decisively against granting leave, particularly at the post-reasons, pre-order stage. Relevant prejudice to the respondent was established, and the new evidence amounted to a wholesale departure from the basis agreed and argued at trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application to Reopen / Post Trial, After Reasons for Judgment But Before Final Orders
Outcome
Application to reopen dismissed; costs awarded to respondent.
Legal Topics
['application to Reopen' 'business Interruption Insurance' 'indemnity Calculation' 'expert Evidence' 'costs']
['practice and Procedure' 'commercial Law' 'corporations Law'] ['application to Reopen' 'business Interruption Insurance' 'indemnity Calculation' 'expert Evidence' 'costs']

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

Interlocutory Application to Reopen / Post Trial, After Reasons for Judgment But Before Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to reopen the case after delivery of reasons but before final orders' 'Whether the interests of justice require admission of further expert accounting evidence to recalculate the quantum of indemnity' 'Whether exceptional circumstances exist justifying reopening to permit a new basis for quantum calculation']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to reopen was refused because Koolan sought to advance a new case with a different basis for calculating the indemnity, which had not previously been put. No exceptional circumstances, inadvertence, or misapprehension were identified. The overriding interests of justice and finality in litigation weighed decisively against granting leave, particularly at the post-reasons, pre-order stage. Relevant prejudice to the respondent was established, and the new evidence amounted to a wholesale departure from the basis agreed and argued at trial.

Court Disposition

Application to reopen dismissed; costs awarded to respondent.

Orders

  • ['The interlocutory application filed on 27 February 2024 is dismissed.' "The applicant must pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application, to be assessed if not agreed."]