Kupang Resources Ltd v International Litigation Partners Pte Ltd
[2015] WASCA 89 (S)
•7 MAY 2015
KUPANG RESOURCES LTD -v- INTERNATIONAL LITIGATION PARTNERS PTE LTD [2015] WASCA 89 (S)
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2015] WASCA 89 (S) | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CACV:131/2014 | 7 MAY 2015 | |
| Coram: | BUSS JA NEWNES JA | 7/05/15 | |
| 5 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Order made | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | KUPANG RESOURCES LTD INTERNATIONAL LITIGATION PARTNERS PTE LTD NATHAN VANCE LANDREY QUENTIN JAMES OLDE COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION |
Catchwords: | Practice and procedure Application to continue interlocutory injunctive relief pending application for special leave to appeal to the High Court Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Briggs v Lunt [No 5] [2011] WASCA 115 Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Lovell (No 2) (1998) 20 WAR 79 Jennings Construction Ltd v Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd [No 1] [1986] HCA 84; (1986) 161 CLR 681 Kupang Resources Ltd v International Litigation Partners Pte Ltd [2015] WASCA 89 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : KUPANG RESOURCES LTD -v- INTERNATIONAL LITIGATION PARTNERS PTE LTD [2015] WASCA 89 (S) CORAM : BUSS JA
- NEWNES JA
- Appellant
AND
INTERNATIONAL LITIGATION PARTNERS PTE LTD
First Respondent
NATHAN VANCE LANDREY
QUENTIN JAMES OLDE
Second Respondents
COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION
Third Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : ALLANSON J
Citation : KUPANG RESOURCES LTD -v- INTERNATIONAL LITIGATION PARTNERS PTE LTD [2014] WASC 371
File No : COR 148 of 2014
Catchwords:
Practice and procedure - Application to continue interlocutory injunctive relief pending application for special leave to appeal to the High Court - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Order made
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr M L Bennett
First Respondent : Mr S Penglis
Second Respondents : No appearance
Third Respondent : Ms C H Thompson
Solicitors:
Appellant : Bennett + Co
First Respondent : Jackson McDonald
Second Respondents : No appearance
Third Respondent : Australian Government Solicitor
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Briggs v Lunt [No 5] [2011] WASCA 115
Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Lovell (No 2) (1998) 20 WAR 79
Jennings Construction Ltd v Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd [No 1] [1986] HCA 84; (1986) 161 CLR 681
Kupang Resources Ltd v International Litigation Partners Pte Ltd [2015] WASCA 89
1 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: The court has published today its reasons for decision in Kupang Resources Ltd v International Litigation Partners Pte Ltd [2015] WASCA 89.
2 The court has made an order today dismissing the appellant's appeal.
3 The parties were provided with an advanced copy of the court's reasons for judgment.
4 The appellant has applied today for orders which, in substance, extend the interlocutory injunctive relief granted by Newnes JA on 5 November 2014. His Honour's orders were expressed to apply until further order.
5 More specifically, the appellant's application today is for injunctive relief to be granted until 28 May 2015 for the purpose of enabling the appellant to obtain advice from Mr Newlinds SC, who argued the appeal on behalf of the appellant, as to the prospects of obtaining special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.
6 The principles applicable to the grant of a stay by an intermediate appeal court are set out in the reasons of Brennan J in Jennings Construction Ltd v Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd [No 1] [1986] HCA 84; (1986) 161 CLR 681 and in the reasons of Ipp J (Pidgeon J agreeing) in Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Lovell (No 2) (1998) 20 WAR 79. See also Briggs v Lunt [No 5] [2011] WASCA 115. Those principles apply by analogy to the present application.
7 The appellant's appeal to this court was dismissed on the basis of the absence of merit in senior counsel for the appellant's first and second points and on the merit of the first respondent's first and second grounds of its notice of contention. Senior counsel for the appellant's third point was based on a false premise and did not advance the appellant's case in the appeal. It was unnecessary to decide senior counsel for the appellant's fourth point or the third ground of the first respondent's notice of contention.
8 Each of the first respondent's first and second grounds of its notice of contention was sufficient to require that the appeal be dismissed. Neither of those grounds depended on the proper construction or effect of the third respondent's notices under s 260-5 of sch 1 of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth).
9 It is our view that, on the basis of the matters in issue in the appeal, including the notice of contention, there is no reasonable prospect of any appeal from this court's judgment being allowed.
10 However, on the contingency that our view may be wrong, we are prepared, after evaluating our view of the merits together with issues relating to the balance of convenience, to postpone the discharge of orders 1 and 2 of the orders made by Newnes JA on 5 November 2014 for a period of 21 days, so that the appellant has an opportunity, if so advised, to file an application for special leave to appeal and, if so advised, to apply to the High Court for interlocutory injunctive or other relief.
0
6
1