Antico v Heath Fielding Aus Pty Ltd

[1997] HCATrans 261

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S176 of 1996

B e t w e e n -

SIR TRISTAN ANTICO

Appellant

and

HEATH FIELDING AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED

Respondent

Consent Order

BRENNAN CJ
TOOHEY J
GAUDRON J
GUMMOW J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON TUESDAY, 23 SEPTEMBER 1997, AT 10.23 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

BRENNAN CJ:   Judgment in this matter was delivered on 7 August 1997 by a Court constituted by Justices Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron, Gummow and myself.  Paragraph 3 of the order then pronounced by the Court gave to the parties liberty to file within 21 days a minute of the orders to be made by this Court to give further effect to the joint reasons for judgment.

The Deputy Registrar certifies that he has been informed by the solicitors for the parties that the parties consent to the making of orders in terms of the minute of orders filed.

The orders are made in accordance with the minute of order filed by the parties in the following terms:

1.This appeal against part of the judgment of the New South Wales Court of Appeal given and made on the 30th day of January 1996 be allowed.

2.The judgment of the New South Wales Court of Appeal dated the 30th day of January 1996 so far as that judgment affects the respondent be set aside and in lieu thereof the following orders be made.

(a)the answers given by Mr Justice Giles in his judgment dated 5 June 1995 to the questions set out in paragraphs 3.1(c) and 3.3(c) of the “Statement of issues in relation to the Earlier Policy” (which is the Appendix to the reasons for judgment dated 5 June 1995 of Mr Justice Giles) be set aside and in lieu thereof the following answers be given:

Questions  Answers

3.1(c)	Whether the Plaintiff’s failure to obtain the First Defendant’s contest under Condition 1 of the Earlier Policy is an omission to which Section 54 of the Act applies	Yes
3.3(c)	Whether the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with clauses 9.2, 9.6 and 9.7 of the Earlier Policy is an omission to which Section 54 of the Act applies	Yes

(b)the respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal to that court which are referrable to the issues raised by questions 3.1(a) and 3.3(a);

(c)the appellant otherwise pay the second respondent’s costs of the appeal to that court.

3.The proceedings be remitted to a judge of the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court of New South Wales to proceed in light of these orders.

4.The costs of the appellant in this appeal be taxed by the proper officer of this Court and when so taxed and allowed be paid by the respondent to the appellant or his solicitors.

The order of the Court is made accordingly.

AT 10.26 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED