The J. Aron Corporation & Anor v Newmont Yandal Operations Pty Ltd & Ors [2004] NSWSC 533

The J. Aron Corporation & Anor v Newmont Yandal Operations Pty Ltd & Ors [2004] NSWSC 533

The respondents did not breach any relevant duty of candour, but the plaintiffs' proposed further evidence had some potential capacity to affect the determination of costs and any prejudice to the respondents from a limited re-opening could be compensated by orders that the plaintiffs pay the costs of the re-opening application and costs thrown away on an indemnity basis forthwith. A limited re-opening of the costs hearing was therefore permitted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Application to Re Open Hearing on Costs / Interlocutory Process Filed by Plaintiffs Seeking Leave to Re Open the Hearing on Costs and to Present Further Evidence and Argument
Outcome
Limited re-opening allowed
Legal Topics
['re Opening a Completed Hearing' 'costs' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'part 5.3 a Administration' 'duty of Candour' 'deed of Company Arrangement']
['procedure' 'corporations'] ['re Opening a Completed Hearing' 'costs' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'part 5.3 a Administration' 'duty of Candour' 'deed of Company Arrangement']

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

Application to Re Open Hearing on Costs / Interlocutory Process Filed by Plaintiffs Seeking Leave to Re Open the Hearing on Costs and to Present Further Evidence and Argument

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the hearing on costs should be re-opened to allow the plaintiffs to adduce further evidence and make further submissions.' 'Whether the defendants failed to discharge any duty of candour to the court at the interlocutory injunction hearing.' 'Whether the proposed further evidence had potential capacity to affect the outcome of the costs questions.' 'Whether the respondents would suffer embarrassment or prejudice from re-opening that could not be compensated by a costs order.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents did not breach any relevant duty of candour, but the plaintiffs' proposed further evidence had some potential capacity to affect the determination of costs and any prejudice to the respondents from a limited re-opening could be compensated by orders that the plaintiffs pay the costs of the re-opening application and costs thrown away on an indemnity basis forthwith. A limited re-opening of the costs hearing was therefore permitted.

Court Disposition

Limited re-opening allowed

Orders

  • ['Order that the hearing on costs that took place before me on 1 April 2004 be re-opened but only to the extent that (a) the plaintiffs may, within seven days, file and serve an affidavit of Marc Ryckmans limited to the further evidence outlined by counsel for the plaintiffs upon the hearing of the application to...