Lahoud & Anor v Lahoud & Ors (No 2) [2012] NSWCA 55

Lahoud & Anor v Lahoud & Ors (No 2) [2012] NSWCA 55

The Court dismissed the motion to reopen because the claim for damages was abandoned at trial and is now barred by cause of action estoppel and merger; all relief should have been sought in the initial proceedings and the case presents no exceptional circumstances to warrant reopening.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Consequential Orders / Decision on Notice of Motion to Reopen, Following Principal Appeal Decision
Outcome
Notice of motion to reopen dismissed; costs to be paid by Victor Lahoud interests.
Legal Topics
['judgments and Orders' 'variation' 'reopening' 'res Judicata' 'cause of Action Estoppel' 'specific Performance' 'damages']

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

Consequential Orders / Decision on Notice of Motion to Reopen, Following Principal Appeal Decision

  1. 1 ['Whether the orders previously made could be reopened to allow a claim for damages for breach of an agreed audit procedure' 'Whether the claim for damages is barred by cause of action estoppel and merger']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed the motion to reopen because the claim for damages was abandoned at trial and is now barred by cause of action estoppel and merger; all relief should have been sought in the initial proceedings and the case presents no exceptional circumstances to warrant reopening.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion to reopen dismissed; costs to be paid by Victor Lahoud interests.

Orders

  • ['Notice of motion of 19 December 2011 as amended dismissed' 'The Victor Lahoud interests are to pay the costs of the Joseph Lahoud interests of the motion']