Lahoud & Ors v Lahoud

[2007] HCATrans 128

[2007] HCATrans 128

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S253 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

VICTOR LAHOUD

First Applicant

CASTLE CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LIMITED

Second Applicant

SOLIDARE PTY LTD

Third Applicant

and

JOSEPH LAHOUD

First Respondent

JOSEPH LAHOUD & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD

Second Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

HAYNE J
CRENNAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 18 APRIL 2007, AT 9.38 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

__________________

HAYNE J:   The applicants seek special leave to appeal against the orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Handley, Hodgson and Ipp JJA).  By those orders, the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants' appeal against orders of a judge of the Supreme Court (Palmer J).

The matter relates to commercial dealings between the first applicant and the first respondent, who are brothers.  Palmer J dealt with questions arising out of terms of settlement made between the applicants and the respondents in compromise of certain proceedings then pending in the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales and as a part of this process, made certain findings in relation to credibility.  The findings made by Palmer J about the credibility of witnesses were critical to the conclusions reached.  The applicants' subsequent appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed.  The Court of Appeal concluded that the findings of the judge at first instance were open on the evidence.  The Court of Appeal also found that although the primary judge's assessment of the first respondent's evidence contained some errors, such errors did not vitiate the principal finding that the first applicant was not a reliable witness.

Because the applicants are unrepresented, the application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.

The applicants' written submissions in support of the application for special leave raise no disputed question of principle.  There are insufficient reasons to doubt the correctness of the conclusions reached in the Court of Appeal.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. I publish that disposition.

AT 9.40 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED