Heckenberg v Delaforce (No 2)

Heckenberg v Delaforce (No 2) concerned an application by the plaintiff, Heckenberg, to re-open a judgment previously delivered by the New South Wales Court of Appeal. The application was brought on the basis that a particular argument, which was central to the plaintiff's case, had been overlooked by the Court in its original determination. The respondents were the defendants, Delaforce.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether it had the power to re-open its own judgment and, if so, under what circumstances such power should be exercised. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the plaintiff had demonstrated that the argument in question was so clearly overlooked that it would be unjust to allow the original judgment to stand.

The Court of Appeal, comprising Mason P, Meagher and Beazley JJA, ultimately dismissed the application. Their Honours held that the power to re-open a judgment, while existing, is to be exercised with extreme caution and only in exceptional circumstances. The Court found that the argument raised by the plaintiff, while important, had not been overlooked in the manner required to justify re-opening the judgment. The Court analysed the original judgment and concluded that the argument had been considered, even if not explicitly detailed in the reasons for judgment. The principles applied centred on the finality of litigation and the need to prevent endless litigation.

The application to re-open the judgment was therefore dismissed.