Oliver Hume South East Queensland Pty Ltd v Investa Residential Group Pty Ltd (No 2)
Case
•
[2017] FCAFC 175
•10 November 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Oliver Hume South East Queensland Pty Ltd v Investa Residential Group Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] FCAFC 175
[2017] FCAFC 175
10 November 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Oliver Hume South East Queensland Pty Ltd v Investa Residential Group Pty Ltd (No 2) involved an appeal against orders made by Justice Collier on 10 September 2015. The dispute between the parties centred around several orders made in relation to cross-claims filed by the appellant against the respondents and by the first respondent against the appellant. The matter was heard by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, which was required to consider the final orders in light of the reasons for judgment published on 1 September 2017.
The court had to decide whether the orders made by Justice Collier were appropriate in light of the Full Court's reasons for judgment. Specifically, the court considered whether the appeal from Orders 3, 4, and 5 of the orders made on 10 September 2015 should be allowed or dismissed, and what orders should be made in relation to costs. The Full Court also had to determine the appropriate orders to be made in relation to the cross-claims that had been remitted back to Justice Collier for determination.
The Full Court found that the appeal in relation to Orders 4 and 5 should be allowed, and those orders should be set aside. The cross-claims that had been the subject of Orders 4 and 5 were remitted back to Justice Collier for determination according to law and in accordance with the Full Court's reasons for judgment. The appeal from Order 3 was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs in relation to that part of the appeal. However, the second respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal in relation to Order 4.
The final orders made by the Full Court were that the appeal in relation to Orders 4 and 5 be allowed, those orders be set aside, and the cross-claims be remitted back to Justice Collier for determination. The appeal from Order 3 was dismissed, and the second respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal in relation to Order 4. These orders and the reasons for judgment in support of them were made and published by the Full Court from the chambers of Justice Greenwood.
The court had to decide whether the orders made by Justice Collier were appropriate in light of the Full Court's reasons for judgment. Specifically, the court considered whether the appeal from Orders 3, 4, and 5 of the orders made on 10 September 2015 should be allowed or dismissed, and what orders should be made in relation to costs. The Full Court also had to determine the appropriate orders to be made in relation to the cross-claims that had been remitted back to Justice Collier for determination.
The Full Court found that the appeal in relation to Orders 4 and 5 should be allowed, and those orders should be set aside. The cross-claims that had been the subject of Orders 4 and 5 were remitted back to Justice Collier for determination according to law and in accordance with the Full Court's reasons for judgment. The appeal from Order 3 was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs in relation to that part of the appeal. However, the second respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal in relation to Order 4.
The final orders made by the Full Court were that the appeal in relation to Orders 4 and 5 be allowed, those orders be set aside, and the cross-claims be remitted back to Justice Collier for determination. The appeal from Order 3 was dismissed, and the second respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal in relation to Order 4. These orders and the reasons for judgment in support of them were made and published by the Full Court from the chambers of Justice Greenwood.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Jurisdiction
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
R v Coyne [2021] QCA 110
Cases Citing This Decision
10
Playford and Inspector-General in Bankruptcy
[2018] AATA 19
R v Smallwood
[2021] QCA 132
R v Coyne
[2021] QCA 110
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
1
Latoudis v Casey
[1990] HCA 59
Latoudis v Casey
[1990] HCA 59