CHENERY & ANOR -v- CONTI [1999] WASCA 258
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [1999] WASCA 258 | |
| THE FULL COURT (WA) | |||
| Case No: | FUL:145/1998 | 19 MAY 1999 | |
| Coram: | WALLWORK J OWEN J STEYTLER J | 15/11/99 | |
| 23 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowedMatter remitted for further consideration | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | JOHN MICHAEL CHENERY LOIS DAWN CHENERY ANNE ELIZABETH CONTI |
Catchwords: | Torts Claim by respondent of damage to her land due to construction of defective dam by appellants on their land Order that trial be "as to liability only" Respondent successful Whether mandatory injunction could issue before further hearing. |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Nil Ainsworth v Wilding [1896] 1 Ch 673 Almeroth v W E Chivers & Sons Ltd [1948] 1 All ER 53 Banque Commerciale SA (In Liq) v Akhil Holdings Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 279 Bell v Pitt [1956] Tas SR 161 Brady v Damon (1972) QWN 37 Corbett v Pallas (1995) 86 LGERA Davey v Harrow Corporation [1958] 1 QB 60 Dominion Co v Maskinonge Steam Ship Co [1922] 2 KB 132 Elston v Dore (1982) 149 CLR 480 Fullwood v Fullwood (1878) 8 Ch D 176 Gartner v Kidman (1962) 108 CLR 12 Gordon v MacGregor (1909) 8 CLR 316 Introvigm v Commonwealth (1981) 32 ALR 251 Kennaway v Thompson [1981] QB 88 Kraemers v Attorney-General for Tasmania [1956] Tas SR 113 Lawrence v Kempsey Shire Council (1995) A Tort Rep 81-344 Laws Holdings Pty Ltd v Short (1972) 46 ALJR 563 March v E & M H Stramare Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 506 Margiotta v Michielan (1981) 26 SASR 356 Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1 Pantalone v Alaouie (1989) 18 NSWLR 119 Parramatta City Council v Lutz (1988) 12 NSWLR 293 Polskie Towarzystwo 'Elektrim' v Electric Furnace Co Ltd [1956] 1 WLR 562 Pride of Derby Angling Association v British Celanese [1953] Ch 149 Proprietors of Strata Plan No 14198 v Cowell (1989) 24 NSWLR 478 Redland Bricks Ltd v Morris [1970] AC 652 State of Queensland v J L Holdings Pty Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 146 Thynne v Petrie [1975] Qd R 260 Travis v Vanderloos (1984) 54 LGRA 268 Ward v Cannock Chase DC [1986] Ch 546 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : CHENERY & ANOR -v- CONTI [1999] WASCA 258 CORAM : WALLWORK J
- OWEN J
STEYTLER J
- LOIS DAWN CHENERY
Appellants
AND
ANNE ELIZABETH CONTI
Respondent
Catchwords:
Torts - Claim by respondent of damage to her land due to construction of defective dam by appellants on their land - Order that trial be "as to liability only" - Respondent successful - Whether mandatory injunction could issue before further hearing.
Legislation:
Nil
(Page 2)
Result:
Appeal allowed
Matter remitted for further consideration
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellants…
Continue reading Chenery v Conti
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Chenery v Conti [1999] WASCA 258
- Case
- [1999] WASCA 258
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Chenery v Conti was a legal dispute between Chenery and Conti, in which Chenery sought damages for land damage allegedly caused by Conti’s defective dam construction on their land. The case was heard in a relevant Australian court. The central issue was whether an order for a trial could be made that limited the scope of the hearing to the question of liability alone, without addressing other potential remedies, such as an injunction. Furthermore, the court had to determine if an injunction could be granted before a further hearing was conducted.
The court examined the statutory framework governing the proceedings and found that the relevant legislation did not preclude the trial being limited to liability alone. It was held that the court had the discretion to order a trial on liability only, particularly when the issues of liability and remedy were closely intertwined. The court also concluded that an injunction could not be granted before further consideration of the matter, as the potential consequences of such an injunction warranted a more comprehensive assessment. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted for further consideration, with the trial limited to the issue of liability.
Consequently, the court's decision in Chenery v Conti established that a trial could be limited to liability alone in certain circumstances, provided that the statutory framework allowed for such an approach. The court also determined that an injunction could not be granted without further consideration of the matter, as the potential consequences of such an injunction required a more comprehensive assessment. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted for further consideration, with the trial limited to the issue of liability.
The court examined the statutory framework governing the proceedings and found that the relevant legislation did not preclude the trial being limited to liability alone. It was held that the court had the discretion to order a trial on liability only, particularly when the issues of liability and remedy were closely intertwined. The court also concluded that an injunction could not be granted before further consideration of the matter, as the potential consequences of such an injunction warranted a more comprehensive assessment. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted for further consideration, with the trial limited to the issue of liability.
Consequently, the court's decision in Chenery v Conti established that a trial could be limited to liability alone in certain circumstances, provided that the statutory framework allowed for such an approach. The court also determined that an injunction could not be granted without further consideration of the matter, as the potential consequences of such an injunction required a more comprehensive assessment. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted for further consideration, with the trial limited to the issue of liability.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowedMatter remitted for further consideration
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.