The Silver Fox Company Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Baker Family Trust (ACN 083 629 225) v Lenard's Pty Ltd (ACN 010 711 145) (No.2) [2004] FCA 1310
In the interests of justice, and given the mutual misunderstanding between all parties and the Court as to the scope of the damages claim, the evidence should be re-opened to allow further submissions and evidence on the discrete issue of the applicants' claim for salary and superannuation foregone, but not to revisit the capital loss in relation to the cross-claim.
- Parties
- First Applicant: The Silver Fox Company Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Baker Family Trust (ACN 083 629 225); Second Applicant: Bryan William Baker; Third Applicant: Beverly Ann Baker; First Respondent: Lenard's Pty Ltd (ACN 010 711 145); Second Respondent: The Poultry Shop Leasing (SA) Pty Ltd (ACN 060 052 020); Third Respondent: Poulet Frais Pty Ltd (ACN 059 852 265); Fourth Respondent: Richard Hamood
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 13 October 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Post Judgment, Pre Orders; Application for Re Opening to Address Quantum of Damages
- Outcome
- Re-opening of evidence permitted on the discrete issue of salary and superannuation foregone; respondents to notify within 14 days if they wish to recall/apply further evidence; not permitted to re-open on the cross-claim capital loss issue; further submissions on procedure and costs invited.
- Legal Topics
- Re Opening Case, Quantification of Damages, Misleading Conduct
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
The Silver Fox Company Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Baker Family Trust (ACN 083 629 225)
First Applicant
Bryan William Baker
Second Applicant
Beverly Ann Baker
Third Applicant
Lenard's Pty Ltd (ACN 010 711 145)
First Respondent
The Poultry Shop Leasing (SA) Pty Ltd (ACN 060 052 020)
Second Respondent
Poulet Frais Pty Ltd (ACN 059 852 265)
Third Respondent
Richard Hamood
Fourth Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Judgment, Pre Orders; Application for Re Opening to Address Quantum of Damages
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Court should permit re-opening of evidence to address additional heads of damages after reasons for judgment but before formal orders
- 2 Whether interests of justice require further argument to be permitted where both Court and respondents misunderstood scope of damages claim
Ratio Decidendi
In the interests of justice, and given the mutual misunderstanding between all parties and the Court as to the scope of the damages claim, the evidence should be re-opened to allow further submissions and evidence on the discrete issue of the applicants' claim for salary and superannuation foregone, but not to revisit the capital loss in relation to the cross-claim.
Court Disposition
Re-opening of evidence permitted on the discrete issue of salary and superannuation foregone; respondents to notify within 14 days if they wish to recall/apply further evidence; not permitted to re-open on the cross-claim capital loss issue; further submissions on procedure and costs invited.
Orders
- Re-opening of evidence permitted limited to the merits of the claim for salary and superannuation foregone.
- Respondents given 14 days to notify the Court and applicants' solicitors whether they wish to recall witnesses or adduce further evidence limited to that issue.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment