Stoland Pty Ltd v Thurn, Peter James & Anor [1997] FCA 557

Stoland Pty Ltd v Thurn, Peter James & Anor [1997] FCA 557

Despite prior failures and some prejudice to the respondent, the applicant should have one more opportunity to make out its case because there is a reasonable prospect it may succeed, and injustice would result from being precluded. Prejudice to respondent is to be compensated by indemnity costs and strict future timetabling.

Parties
Applicant: STOLAND PTY LIMITED; First Respondent: PETER JAMES THURN; Second Respondent: WILLIAM GARY QUICK
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 June 1997
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Motion for Leave to Reopen Applicant's Case
Outcome
Application for leave to reopen granted; application for leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Leave to Reopen Case, Interlocutory Orders, Costs, Interests of Justice
Practice and Procedure Leave to Reopen Case Interlocutory Orders Costs Interests of Justice

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

STOLAND PTY LIMITED

Applicant

PETER JAMES THURN

First Respondent

WILLIAM GARY QUICK

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Motion for Leave to Reopen Applicant's Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant should be granted leave to reopen its case after failing to make out its case at hearing
  2. 2 Whether prejudice or injustice would arise to either party from granting or refusing leave
  3. 3 What principles govern the court’s discretion in such applications

Ratio Decidendi

Despite prior failures and some prejudice to the respondent, the applicant should have one more opportunity to make out its case because there is a reasonable prospect it may succeed, and injustice would result from being precluded. Prejudice to respondent is to be compensated by indemnity costs and strict future timetabling.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to reopen granted; application for leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Applicant granted leave to reopen the case.
  • Applicant to pay costs on the indemnity basis of the proceedings from and including 22 August 1996 to the conclusion of today's proceedings.