Bride v Milne Feeds Pty Ltd & Anor - [1998] HCATrans 224

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Perth No P9 of 1997

B e t w e e n -
EDWARD JAMES BRIDE
Applicant
and
MILNE FEEDS PTY LTD
First Respondent
THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES
Second Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal

GUMMOW J
HAYNE J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

FROM PERTH BY VIDEO LINK TO CANBERRA

ON FRIDAY, 19 JUNE 1998, AT 1.23 PM

MR E.J. BRIDE appeared in person.

GUMMOW J: Just before you start, Mr Bride, there are two things I should say. The first is that the Senior Registrar has been advised by the solicitor for the first respondent, Milne Feeds Pty Ltd, that the first respondent does not seek to supplement its written summary of argument with oral argument. The Senior Registrar also certifies that she holds a letter from the Registrar of Titles, the second respondent, that the Registrar does not intend to enter an appearance and will abide by any orders made by the Court save as to costs. You wish to supplement your written material, do you, by oral submissions?

MR BRIDE: Yes, I do, your Honour.

GUMMOW J: You appreciate you have 20 minutes to do so?

MR BRIDE: I understand that, your Honours. These are purely matters of law and the matters of law are whether the issue of fresh evidence was res judicata. My argument to the Court is that at law it cannot be res judicata because it was put to the court in an informal manner by myself with an invitation to the court on a previous action to recall the court if it was not correct and, if it was not correct, then I would move the court to do so and put it to the court in a formal manner.

If I could take your Honours to the authorities at pages 103 and 104, basically what it was, there was a matter which was a Full Court matter before the Full Court which dealt with this particular respondent and on 20 October 1994 during the discovery and inspection of the bank and the receiver managers’ papers, bearing in mind that this goes back to 9 August 1984, some 10 years and a few months later. During the course of discovery and inspection I became aware of the documents listed on page 103 a/ through to f/ which relate to the notices of appointment of receivers and managers as they were handed to me at 8 and there is an identifying mark being PMMJ000021, which is the identification mark for discovery and inspection. That is a notice of appointment dated 9 August 1984.

The second one which is dated 9 August 1984 - first of all, the first one is at page 105A and that document was served upon me on 10 August 1984 and represented to be a formal and proper ‑ ‑ ‑

GUMMOW J: Yes, we understand the history of that matter. We…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Bride v Milne Feeds Pty Ltd & Anor and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1998] HCATrans 224
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bride v Milne Feeds Pty Ltd & Anor concerned a dispute between the appellant, Bride, and the respondents, Milne Feeds Pty Ltd and another party. The case came before the High Court of Australia, with judgment delivered by Gummow and Hayne JJ. The core of the dispute involved the interpretation and application of certain contractual provisions and their effect on the parties' respective rights and obligations.

The High Court was required to determine, among other things, whether the respondents had breached their contractual obligations to the appellant. This involved a close examination of the terms of the agreement between the parties and whether the conduct of the respondents was consistent with those terms. The court also had to consider the legal consequences of any such breach, including the appellant's entitlement to relief.

In reaching its decision, the court engaged in a detailed analysis of the contractual language, applying established principles of contract law. The reasoning focused on the objective meaning of the words used in the agreement and the surrounding circumstances at the time of its formation. The court considered how these principles applied to the factual matrix presented, ultimately determining the scope of the parties' respective duties and liabilities.

Orders