Gore v Montague Mining Pty Ltd

[1999] FCA 154

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Gore v Montague Mining Pty Ltd [199] FCA 154

PETER L GORE & ORS TRADING AS CLAYTON UTZ v

MONTAGUE MINING PTY LIMITED

NG 563 of 1997

HILL, LEHANE AND HELY JJ
19 FEBRUARY 1999
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 563 OF 1997

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT

BETWEEN:	PETER L GORE & ORS TRADING AS CLAYTON UTZ Appellant
AND:	MONTAGUE MINING PTY LIMITED Respondent
JUDGES:	HILL, LEHANE AND HELY J
DATE OF ORDER:	19 FEBRUARY 1999
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

CORRIGENDUM

Please note that the names of the Appellant and Respondent were incorrect in the the Reasons for Judgment handed down on 19 February 1999.  A copy of the amended judgment is attached herewith.

Joanne Harland

Associate to the Honourable Justice Hill
27 April 1999

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 563 OF 1997

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT

BETWEEN:	PETER L GORE & ORS TRADING AS CLAYTON UTZ Appellant
AND:	MONTAGUE MINING PTY LIMITED Respondent
JUDGES:	HILL, LEHANE AND HELY J
DATE OF ORDER:	19 FEBRUARY 1999
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The appellant pay the respondent’s costs.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 563 OF 1997

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT

BETWEEN:	PETER L GORE & ORS TRADING AS CLAYTON UTZ Appellant
AND:	MONTAGUE MINING PTY LIMITED Respondent

JUDGES:	HILL, LEHANE AND HELY J
DATE:	19 FEBRUARY 1999
PLACE:	SYDNEY

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. HILL J:  The appellant, Peter Gore, seeks leave to appeal against what are said to be orders made by Wilcox J in a judgment delivered by his Honour on 23 October 1998. 

2. In that judgment his Honour indicated that liability had been made out as against the appellant but that, as damage was one of the elements of the tort of negligence, it was necessary to proceed to an assessment of damages.  The orders actually made by his Honour appear in the short minutes at the commencement of the published version of the judgment and relate only to matters concerned with the subsequent management of the litigation.

3. It is my view, a view which is shared by the respondent and the appellant, that no orders have been made by his Honour to the effect that the appellant was liable in negligence.  In these circumstances, there is no interlocutory order in respect of which leave to appeal can proceed.  Consequently, the application for leave should be dismissed with costs. 

1. LEHANE J:    I agree

2. HELY J:        I agree.

3. HILL J:         The order of the Court accordingly will be that the application for leave to appeal be dismissed and that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs of that application.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justices Hill, Lehane and Hely.

Associate:

Dated:             19 February 1999

Solicitor for the Appellant:	Cashman & Partners
Counsel for the Respondents:	Mr A Spencer
Solicitor for the Respondents:	Corrs Chambers Westgarth
Date of Hearing:	19 February 1999
Date of Judgment:	19 February 1999