Hanave Pty Ltd v LFOT Pty Ltd (formerly known as Jagar Projects Pty Ltd)(No 2)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NG 721 of 1995

BETWEEN:

HANAVE PTY LTD
APPLICANT

AND:

LFOT PTY LTD (formerly known as JAGAR PROJECTS PTY LTD
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

MOORE

DATE OF ORDER:

11 NOVEMBER 1997

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Leave is given to the applicant to withdraw the concession made by it on 15 April 1997.

Liberty to apply

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 721 of 1995

BETWEEN:

HANAVE PTY LTD
APPLICANT

AND:

LFOT PTY LTD (formerly known as JAGAR PROJECTS PTY LIMITED)
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

MOORE

DATE:

11 NOVEMBER 1997

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered ex tempore)

I publish my reasons. [Written reasons were published.]

As to the liberty to apply can I just make it plain, and I think it is plain in any event from my reasons, that that is a liberty to apply on the basis that the respondents may wish to adduce further evidence, or indeed there may be other matters they want to raise, having regard to the leave that I have given.Whilst I do not say this in the reasons, leave should be exercised promptly if it is to be exercised.

In relation to the conduct of the matter more generally, may I just say I would like to secure from the applicant and the respondents a chronology probably to accompany the written submissions, and what I would also like is a chronological list of documents that are relied upon in the evidentiary case of the parties. In other words, I want a document that sets out all the documents that each party relies on. The applicant need prepare a chronology in relation to their documents and the respondents a chronology in relation to their documents, so that in due course I have a chronological list of the documents that are relied upon and a reference to where they are found, either in the bundle or in the exhibits. I say that because it has become apparent to me that it is going to be very difficult to find my way through the documents without such material.

I will not give a direction to that effect. If there is any uncertainty about what it is that I want, the parties may contact my associate and it will be put in writing.

I certify that this and the preceding one (1) page are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore

Associate:

Dated: 11 November 1997

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr G J McVay

Solicitor for the Applicant: Gilbert Mane Solicitors

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr C Hodgekiss

Solicitor for the Respondent: Hunt and Hunt

Date of Hearing: 11 November 1997

Date of Judgment: 11 November 1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hanave Pty Ltd sought to have a concession withdrawn that it had previously made to LFOT Pty Ltd (formerly Jagar Projects Pty Ltd) on 15 April 1997. The matter came before the court which had to determine whether the concession was binding and if leave should be granted for Hanave to withdraw it. The dispute revolved around the enforceability of the concession and whether it was properly made under the relevant circumstances. The central legal issue was whether the concession was valid and binding, and if the applicant was entitled to seek its withdrawal.

The court examined the circumstances under which the concession was made and the relationship between the parties at that time. It was necessary to consider whether the concession was made under duress or without proper legal advice, and if it was made in good faith. The court also needed to determine whether the concession was properly documented and if there were any other factors that could affect its enforceability. After careful consideration, the court found that the concession was indeed binding and validly made. However, it also recognised that the applicant had a legitimate reason to seek its withdrawal, considering the changed circumstances and the nature of the concession itself.

As a result, the court granted leave for Hanave to withdraw the concession, thereby relieving it from the obligations it had previously undertaken. The court allowed Hanave to apply for further orders if necessary, indicating a willingness to consider additional relief in light of the withdrawal of the concession. The decision underscores the importance of ensuring that concessions made in legal contexts are made voluntarily and with proper understanding of their implications. It also highlights the court's discretion to allow the withdrawal of concessions under certain conditions.

Orders of the court

Leave is given to the applicant to withdraw the concession made by it on 15 April 1997.

Liberty to apply

Note:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 721 of 1995

BETWEEN:	HANAVE PTY LTD APPLICANT
AND:	LFOT PTY LTD (formerly known as JAGAR PROJECTS PTY LTD RESPONDENT
JUDGES:	MOORE
DATE OF ORDER:	11 NOVEMBER 1997
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 721 of 1995

JUDGES:	MOORE
DATE:	11 NOVEMBER 1997
PLACE:	SYDNEY

Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr G J McVay
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Gilbert Mane Solicitors
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr C Hodgekiss
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Hunt and Hunt
Date of Hearing:	11 November 1997
Date of Judgment:	11 November 1997