SAVAGE and ORS v LUNN and ORS [1998] NSWCA 204

SAVAGE and ORS v LUNN and ORS [1998] NSWCA 204

There was no evidence that the Judge's reasons or conduct prior to 14 October 1994 provided any basis for ostensible bias or pre-judgment, and the earlier judgment correctly applied the principle that laches requires proof of sufficient knowledge of the facts by the plaintiffs, which was not controverted by cited authorities.

Parties
Claimant/appellant/defendant: SAVAGE; Respondent/plaintiff: LUNN
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 November 1998
Procedural Posture
Motion for Rehearing on Appeal / Post Judgment Motion
Outcome
Motion dismissed
Legal Topics
Ostensible Bias, Laches
Practice and Procedure Equity Ostensible Bias Laches

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 2 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SAVAGE

Claimant/appellant/defendant

LUNN

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Motion for Rehearing on Appeal / Post Judgment Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ostensible bias or pre-judgment by the trial Judge vitiated the 1994 reasons
  2. 2 Whether the Court’s earlier judgment adequately addressed the defence of laches

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence that the Judge's reasons or conduct prior to 14 October 1994 provided any basis for ostensible bias or pre-judgment, and the earlier judgment correctly applied the principle that laches requires proof of sufficient knowledge of the facts by the plaintiffs, which was not controverted by cited authorities.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed

Orders

  • Motion dismissed
  • Claimants to pay opponents' costs