Newmont Yandal Operations Pty Ltd v The J Aron Corporation and The Goldman Sachs Group Inc
Case
•
[2007] NSWCA 195
•10 August 2007
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Newmont Yandal Operations Pty Ltd v The J Aron Corporation and The Goldman Sachs Group Inc [2007] NSWCA 195
[2007] NSWCA 195
10 August 2007
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Newmont Yandal Operations Pty Ltd (Newmont) sought to set aside an order made by White J in related proceedings involving The J Aron Corporation and The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. The dispute concerned an application to amend or set aside a previous court order, which had significant implications for other ongoing litigation. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the original order made by White J should be set aside or amended. Specifically, the court considered whether the order had been made erroneously, resolving an issue not adjudicated upon, and whether the court possessed the power to correct such an error under the slip rule (Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 36.17) or its inherent jurisdiction. The court also considered the defence of res judicata or estoppel raised by the respondents, and whether the judge who made the original order was disqualified from hearing the application to amend it due to potential bias.
The Court of Appeal reasoned that the original order, by including the words "Declare that", had the effect of making a declaration that had not been sought or adjudicated upon by the court. This constituted an error that fell within the scope of the slip rule, allowing for correction to give effect to the court's objective intention. The court found that the judge was not disqualified from hearing the application. Leave to appeal was granted, and the orders of White J were varied by deleting the words "Declare that" and capitalising the subsequent letter in the relevant parts of the order. The appeal was ultimately dismissed with costs.
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the original order made by White J should be set aside or amended. Specifically, the court considered whether the order had been made erroneously, resolving an issue not adjudicated upon, and whether the court possessed the power to correct such an error under the slip rule (Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 36.17) or its inherent jurisdiction. The court also considered the defence of res judicata or estoppel raised by the respondents, and whether the judge who made the original order was disqualified from hearing the application to amend it due to potential bias.
The Court of Appeal reasoned that the original order, by including the words "Declare that", had the effect of making a declaration that had not been sought or adjudicated upon by the court. This constituted an error that fell within the scope of the slip rule, allowing for correction to give effect to the court's objective intention. The court found that the judge was not disqualified from hearing the application. Leave to appeal was granted, and the orders of White J were varied by deleting the words "Declare that" and capitalising the subsequent letter in the relevant parts of the order. The appeal was ultimately dismissed with costs.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Procedure
-
Contract Law
Legal Concepts
-
Res Judicata
-
Estoppel
-
Appeal
-
Costs
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Finder Earth Pty Ltd v BN and SK Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] VCC 288
Cases Citing This Decision
531
Dunstan v Higham (No 2)
[2016] ACTCA 28
Dunstan v Higham (No 2)
[2016] ACTCA 28
Wickey v The Queen (No 2)
[2012] ACTCA 51
Cases Cited
37
Statutory Material Cited
4
J Aron Corporation v Newmont Yandal Operations
[2006] NSWSC 849
Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc
[1981] HCA 39