Bensons Property Group Pty Ltd v Key Infrastructure Australia Pty Ltd [No 2]
Case
•
[2021] VSCA 116
•10 May 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Bensons Property Group Pty Ltd v Key Infrastructure Australia Pty Ltd [No 2] [2021] VSCA 116
[2021] VSCA 116
10 May 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Bensons Property Group Pty Ltd (Bensons) brought an appeal against Key Infrastructure Australia Pty Ltd (Key Infrastructure) in relation to a dispute concerning property development and management. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue was whether the Court should make a correction or supplemental order regarding the orders made on the date the judgment was published, particularly in light of the COVID-19 pandemic which had precluded the parties from attending court. Additionally, the case examined the appellant's request for a special order based on an offer of compromise under the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015.
The Court considered whether it had the inherent jurisdiction to make a supplemental order given the circumstances of the pandemic. It referred to the principles established in Gamboni v Bendigo and Adelaide Bank [No 2], which suggested that the principle of finality would not be offended by such an order. The Court found that, despite the pandemic, the parties had been given an opportunity to file further submissions and the principle of finality was not compromised. Regarding the offer of compromise, the Court determined that the appellant's offer was not a genuine attempt at compromise but rather designed to obtain costs protection, and therefore, a special order was not warranted. The appellant also sought an additional order under the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, but this was denied due to the absence of special grounds.
Ultimately, the Court decided against making any supplemental or additional orders, and the appeal was dismissed without any special order for costs. The final orders affirmed the original decision, and no further costs were awarded to either party.
The Court considered whether it had the inherent jurisdiction to make a supplemental order given the circumstances of the pandemic. It referred to the principles established in Gamboni v Bendigo and Adelaide Bank [No 2], which suggested that the principle of finality would not be offended by such an order. The Court found that, despite the pandemic, the parties had been given an opportunity to file further submissions and the principle of finality was not compromised. Regarding the offer of compromise, the Court determined that the appellant's offer was not a genuine attempt at compromise but rather designed to obtain costs protection, and therefore, a special order was not warranted. The appellant also sought an additional order under the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, but this was denied due to the absence of special grounds.
Ultimately, the Court decided against making any supplemental or additional orders, and the appeal was dismissed without any special order for costs. The final orders affirmed the original decision, and no further costs were awarded to either party.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Limitation Periods
-
Costs
-
Interlocutory Orders
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Bensons Property Group Pty Ltd v Key Infrastructure Australia Pty Ltd [No 2] [2021] VSCA 116
Most Recent Citation
The University of Melbourne v Commissioner of State Revenue (No 2) [2021] VSC 322
Cases Citing This Decision
4
Razzy Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue
[2021] VSC 409
Razzy Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue
[2021] VSC 409
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
0
Gamboni v Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Ltd
[2013] VSCA 282
Enerka Apex Belting Pty Ltd v Vickers Systems Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2002] VSC 409