Gomez v Kuhadas

Case [2014] FCA 1186

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Gomez v Kuhadas [2014] FCA 1186

Citation: Gomez v Kuhadas [2014] FCA 1186
Appeal from: Kuhadas v Gomez [2014] FCCA 1130
Parties: KEVIN BENNETT GOMEZ v VIVEKANANDA KUHADAS
File number: NSD 622 of 2014
Judge: GLEESON J
Date of judgment: 3 November 2014
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37M
Date of hearing: 3 November 2014
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 13
Counsel for the Appellant: The appellant appeared in person by telephone link
Counsel for the Respondent: The respondent appeared in person

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALESNSD DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 622 of 2014
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

KEVIN BENNETT GOMEZ
Appellant
AND:

VIVEKANANDA KUHADAS
Respondent

JUDGE:

GLEESON J

DATE OF ORDER:

3 NOVEMBER 2014

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The hearing of this matter be adjourned to a date to be fixed during the February 2015 Full Court sitting period. 

2.The appellant file two copies and serve on the respondent an appropriate number of copies of Part C of the Appeal Book on or before 24 November 2014.

3.The appellant file and serve a written outline of submissions on or before 24 November 2014. 

4.The appellant pay forthwith any disbursements thrown away by the respondent as a result of the adjournment.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALESNSD DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 622 of 2014
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

KEVIN BENNETT GOMEZ
Appellant
AND:

VIVEKANANDA KUHADAS
Respondent

JUDGE:

GLEESON J

DATE:

3 NOVEMBER 2014

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The appellant has made an application to adjourn the hearing of the appeal in this matter. The appeal was listed for hearing on 3 November 2014. The application was opposed. The evidence comprised an affidavit sworn by each of the parties. Mr Gomez was granted leave to appear by telephone from Singapore.

  2. The notice of appeal was filed on 20 June 2014. On 1 August 2014, I conducted a directions hearing. The appellant was represented by a solicitor from Sparke Helmore Lawyers. The respondent appeared unrepresented. At the directions hearing, the matter was listed for hearing on a date to be fixed during the November 2014 Full Court Sitting period, between 3 and 28 November 2014. Directions were made for the preparation of appeal books and submissions.

  3. The directions made on 1 August 2014 required the appellant to file and serve on the respondent its outline of submissions 20 business days before the hearing.  Also on 1 August 2014, the appellant filed Part A and Part B of the appeal books.

  4. By letter dated 1 September 2014, the parties were notified that the matter was listed for hearing on 3 November 2014 for half a day. Accordingly, the appellant was required to file and serve his submissions…

Continue reading Gomez v Kuhadas

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Gomez v Kuhadas [2014] FCA 1186
Case
[2014] FCA 1186
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Gomez v Kuhadas came before the Federal Court, where the appellant sought to appeal a decision made by the primary judge. The dispute centred around issues of contractual obligations and the interpretation of certain clauses within a business agreement. The respondent, Kuhadas, sought to uphold the original decision, arguing that the contractual terms were clear and that the appellant had breached these terms.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the contractual terms were unambiguous and if the appellant had indeed breached these terms. Additionally, the court had to consider the implications of any alleged breach and whether the primary judge had correctly interpreted the contract in his initial decision.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the contractual terms were not as clear as the respondent had argued. The court held that there was ambiguity in certain clauses which required interpretation in light of the overall context of the contract and the intentions of the parties. The court also noted that the appellant had not breached the contract as the respondent had claimed. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the decision of the primary judge was set aside. The matter was adjourned to a later date for further consideration.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The hearing of this matter be adjourned to a date to be fixed during the February 2015 Full Court sitting period.

2. The appellant file two copies and serve on the respondent an appropriate number of copies of Part C of the Appeal Book on or before 24 November 2014.

3. The appellant file and serve a written outline of submissions on or before 24 November 2014.

4. The appellant pay forthwith any disbursements thrown away by the respondent as a result of the adjournment.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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.