Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd v Hannigan

Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd (the applicant) sought leave to appeal from a decision of the primary judge who had dismissed its application for a permanent stay of proceedings. The respondent, Hannigan, had commenced a second proceeding claiming damages for breach of contract. The applicant sought to stay this second proceeding on the basis of *Anshun* estoppel, arguing that the issues raised in the second proceeding could and should have been litigated in an earlier proceeding. The earlier proceeding, commenced by the applicant, sought declaratory relief concerning the existence of a contract and its valid termination.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary judge erred in dismissing the application for a permanent stay. This required the Court to consider whether the defence of *Anshun* estoppel applied to prevent the respondent from pursuing its claim for damages for breach of contract, or alternatively, whether there were grounds for granting a permanent stay of proceedings. The Court also had to assess whether the applicant had demonstrated a reasonably clear injustice that went beyond something merely arguable, as required for the grant of a permanent stay.

Gleeson JA and Simpson AJA dismissed the summons seeking leave to appeal. Their Honours found that the primary judge had correctly concluded that the applicant had not established the necessary grounds for a permanent stay. The Court noted that the applicant had delayed in seeking the stay, and this delay had caused prejudice to the respondent. Furthermore, the applicant had not sought an interim stay pending the determination of its leave application. The Court was not satisfied that there was a reasonably clear injustice that warranted a permanent stay of the respondent's proceedings.

The summons seeking leave to appeal filed on 7 September 2021 was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs.