Caratti v Mammoth Investments Pty Ltd (No 2)
Case
•
[2018] WASCA 6
•19 JANUARY 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Caratti v Mammoth Investments Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] WASCA 6
[2018] WASCA 6
19 JANUARY 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Court of Appeal of Western Australia, Allen Bruce Caratti has applied to the court for reconsideration of orders made in three appeals arising from a decision of Martin CJ in Esperance Cattle Company Pty Ltd v Granite Hill Pty Ltd. The appeals, which were heard together, concerned a sublease executed by Mammoth Investments Pty Ltd, a company associated with the Caratti family, to Granite Hill Pty Ltd, and the dispute over the validity of that sublease. Allen Caratti, who signed the sublease as a director of Mammoth when he was not, and forged the signature of another director, has now sought to rely on the liberty to apply, which was granted in the appeal decision, to argue that the orders made by the primary judge should be reconsidered.
The key issues before the court were whether the liberty to apply was properly engaged and, if so, what orders should be made. In particular, the court considered whether the delay in making the application, the interests of justice, and the effect of any errors in the primary decision on the orders made for assessment of damages should be taken into account. The court also considered whether there was any basis for the recusal of the primary judge.
The court found that the liberty to apply was properly engaged, but that the delay in making the application was a significant factor against allowing the applications to be heard on their merits. The court noted that the primary judge had made orders for assessment of damages, and that the delay in making the application meant that the interests of justice did not favour allowing the applications to be heard on their merits. The court also found that the errors in the primary decision did not affect the findings of breach and causation, and therefore did not affect the making of orders for damages to be assessed. Finally, the court found that there was no proper basis for the recusal of the primary judge.
The orders of the court were that Allen Caratti's applications be dismissed.
The key issues before the court were whether the liberty to apply was properly engaged and, if so, what orders should be made. In particular, the court considered whether the delay in making the application, the interests of justice, and the effect of any errors in the primary decision on the orders made for assessment of damages should be taken into account. The court also considered whether there was any basis for the recusal of the primary judge.
The court found that the liberty to apply was properly engaged, but that the delay in making the application was a significant factor against allowing the applications to be heard on their merits. The court noted that the primary judge had made orders for assessment of damages, and that the delay in making the application meant that the interests of justice did not favour allowing the applications to be heard on their merits. The court also found that the errors in the primary decision did not affect the findings of breach and causation, and therefore did not affect the making of orders for damages to be assessed. Finally, the court found that there was no proper basis for the recusal of the primary judge.
The orders of the court were that Allen Caratti's applications be dismissed.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Liberty to Apply
-
Appeal
-
Jurisdiction
-
Res Judicata
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Cassim v Dahaby (No 2) [2025] VSC 69
Cases Citing This Decision
16
Broken Hill Cobalt Project Pty Ltd v Lord
[2022] NSWCA 271
Gallop Reserve Pty Ltd v Matton Developments Pty Ltd
[2019] QSC 113
Marks v Coles Supermarkets
[2020] WADC 36
Cases Cited
27
Statutory Material Cited
1
Esperance Cattle Company Pty Ltd v Granite Hill Pty Ltd
[2014] WASC 279
Esperance Cattle Company Pty Ltd v Granite Hill Pty Ltd
[2014] WASC 279
Gallop Reserve Pty Ltd v Matton Developments Pty Ltd
[2019] QSC 113