Grimaldi v Chameleon Mining (No 1)

Case [2011] FCA 936

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Grimaldi v Chameleon Mining NL (No 1) [2011] FCA 936

Citation: Grimaldi v Chameleon Mining (No 1) [2011] FCA 936
Appeal from: Chameleon Mining NL v Murchison Metals Limited [2010] FCA 1129
Parties: PHILLIP FELICE GRIMALDI v CHAMELEON MINING NL and MURCHISON METALS LIMITED ACN 078 257 799
File number: NSD 68 of 2011
Judge: PERRAM J
Date of judgment: 1 August 2011
Corrigendum 17 August 2011
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appeals – application to amend – application to amend notice of contention – where notice of appeal amended – no explanation for delay
Legislation:

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37M

Federal Court Rules 1976   O 13 r 2, O 52 r 22(3)
Federal Court Rules 2011 r 36.24
Court Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT)   r 21(2)
Cases cited: Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175 applied
Barnes v Addy (1874) LR 9 Ch App 344 cited
Date of hearing: 1 August 2011
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 20
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr A G Bell SC with Mr M Watts
Solicitor for the Appellant: M J Woods & Co
Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr M Bennett
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Bennett & Co
Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Ms S Bellini of Freehills

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Grimaldi v Chameleon Mining NL (No 1) [2011] FCA 936

CORRIGENDUM

1.The judgment originally published under the medium neutral citation of Grimaldi v Chameleon Mining NL (No 1) [2011] FCAFC 95 should have instead borne the medium neutral citation of Grimaldi v Chameleon Mining NL (No 1) [2011] FCA 936.

2.The Judges listed on the judgment coversheet as “Finn, Stone and Perram JJ” should instead be “Perram J”.

3.Counsel for the First Respondent, Mr M Bennett, should be included on the judgment coversheet.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Corrigendum to the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Perram.

Associate:

Dated:       17 August 2011


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 68 of 2011
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

PHILLIP FELICE GRIMALDI
Appellant
AND:

CHAMELEON MINING NL
First Respondent

MURCHISON METALS LIMITED ACN 078 257 799
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

PERRAM J

DATE OF ORDER:

1 AUGUST 2011

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The first respondent’s notice of motion be dismissed with costs.

2.The first respondent’s oral application for adjournment be refused.

3.The appellant serve the amended notice of appeal on the respondents forthwith.

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.2 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 68 of 2011
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

PHILLIP FELICE GRIMALDI
Appellant
AND:

CHAMELEON MINING NL
First Respondent

MURCHISON METALS LIMITED ACN 078 257 799
Second Respondent

Continue reading Grimaldi v Chameleon Mining (No 1)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Grimaldi v Chameleon Mining (No 1) [2011] FCA 936
Case
[2011] FCA 936
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Grimaldi v Chameleon Mining (No 1) involved the appellant, Grimaldi, who sought to amend their notice of appeal against the first and second respondents, Chameleon Mining. The initial dispute pertained to an appeal from a decision made by the Federal Court of Australia. The appellant aimed to modify their notice of contention to include additional grounds of appeal, which were not initially specified. The court was tasked with deciding whether the appellant could amend the notice of appeal and whether the delay in proposing these amendments was justifiable.

The legal issues before the court centred on the permissible scope of amending a notice of appeal and the criteria for allowing such amendments. Specifically, the court had to assess whether the appellant's proposed changes to the notice of contention were reasonable and whether the delay in submitting these amendments warranted a refusal. The court also needed to determine whether the appellant provided sufficient justification for the delay in proposing the amendments.

In addressing these issues, the court found that the appellant had not provided an adequate explanation for the delay in amending the notice of contention. The appellant's failure to justify the delay was a critical factor in the court's decision. The court held that the appellant's application to amend the notice of appeal was not in the interests of justice and, therefore, should be dismissed. The court emphasised that the appellant's notice of appeal was already amended, and the proposed changes would significantly alter the nature of the appeal. The court concluded that the appellant's application to amend the notice of contention was untimely and unjustified. Consequently, the court dismissed the application and refused the appellant's request for an adjournment. The appellant was ordered to serve the amended notice of appeal on the respondents immediately.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The first respondent’s notice of motion be dismissed with costs.

2. The first respondent’s oral application for adjournment be refused.

3. The appellant serve the amended notice of appeal on the respondents forthwith.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.2 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.