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.
Procedural Posture
Consequential Orders / Decision on Notice of Motion to Reopen, Following Principal Appeal Decision
Legal Issues
- 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']
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