Arida v Arida & Ors (No. 2) [2013] NSWSC 1137

Leave to reopen was refused because the issue regarding valuer qualifications was not raised at the initial hearing and reopening would not serve the just, cheap or quick disposition of proceedings, nor was there underlying merit to the issue being raised at this stage.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 07 August 2013
Procedural Posture: Application for Leave to Reopen; Consequential Orders / Post Judgment; Orders to Give Effect to Reasons
Outcome: Application to reopen refused; orders made as per short minutes (with variations)
Legal Topics: ['application for Leave to Reopen' 'appointment of Valuers' 'compliance With Contractual Terms' 'civil Procedure Act Objectives']

['procedure' 'equity'] ['application for Leave to Reopen' 'appointment of Valuers' 'compliance With Contractual Terms' 'civil Procedure Act Objectives']

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

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Reopen; Consequential Orders / Post Judgment; Orders to Give Effect to Reasons

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether leave should be granted to reopen proceedings to adduce further evidence regarding qualifications of valuers' 'Whether suggested valuers meet criteria in the Heads of Agreement']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application to reopen refused; orders made as per short minutes (with variations)

Orders

['Orders 1, 2, 3, 3A, 4, 5, 6 and 8 made (with variations as noted)' 'Matter noted in paragraph 7 of the short minutes']