Roach and Ors v Page and Ors (No.36) - [2004] NSWSC 776

CITATION: Roach & Ors v Page & Ors (No.36) [2004] NSWSC 776

HEARING DATE(S): 4-8, 11-14, 18-21, 25-29 August 2003
1, 5, 9-12, 15-19 September 2003
13-17, 20-24, 27-30 October 2003
3-7, 10, 13-14, 20-21, 27-28 November 2003
2, 4, 8-12, 15-19 December 2003
2-6, 9-10 February 2004
11 June 2004
30 July 2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
27 August 2004

JURISDICTION:
Common Law

JUDGMENT OF: Sperling J at 1

DECISION: See [30]-[38] of the judgment.

CATCHWORDS: Practice and procedure - further submissions after judgment reserved - no question of principle

LEGISLATION CITED: Supreme Court Rules 1970, Pt15 r13

PARTIES :
Walter Edward Roach
Sydtech Pty Ltd
Winnote Pty Ltd
Brian John Downey Page, Brian James Page, Peter Eustace Hollingdale, Rod McLeond, Warren Francis Asprey, Ian Farley Hutchinson, Brian Edmond Thornton, Geza Francis Kim Santow, Thomas Owen Jones, Robert Colin Nicholls, James Henry Graham, Peter Short, Phillip Thornton Taylor, Bruce Kelvin Cutler, Richard A Longes, John Charles Mulally, Kevin William Broadley, James Michael Page, Peter John Arthur Carney, Patricia Helen Brown, Brian John McFadyen, Robert Andrew Channon, Peter John Perry, Douglas Michael Franc, Peter Stanley Ridout, Michael John Gray, Julian Block, Howard Keith Chillingworth Steele, Edward Joseph Wright, Claire Grose, John Hugh Clifford Colvin, Bryan David Weir, George Thomas Forster, John Lindsay Arthur, Roy Merrill Randall, Anthony Joseph Muratore, Sir Clarence Waldemar Harders, Peter Campbell Church, Terence Michael Burke, Richard Stuart Gray, John Kevin O'Sullivan, Gregory Stephen Pearce, Rebecca Anne Davies, Gordon David Cooper, Pamela Gaye Edwards, Stephen David Chipkin, Yukio Hayashi, Lucy Kathleen Farrell, Paul Ashley Cooper, David Myles Bennett QC, Graham John Kelly, Barry Leon Barker, Fabian Gleeson, Helen Irwin Wright, John Martin Green, Iain Ronald Jones, Shaun Gerard McGushin, Mark Russell Cohen, Joanne Christine Seve, Amanda Jane Harkness, John Peirce Angus, Cornelius Daniel Neil Griffin, Murray John Dearberg, Marc Sandford Hutchinson, Timothy Mark Hirshman, Leon Pasternak, Kevin Alan Lewis, Donald Bruce Robertson, Michael Perrin Ryland, Richard Randolph Pearson, Geoffrey Howard Levy, Philip John Christensen, Geoffrey Alan McClellan, David Jacob Hammerschlag, Gavin Terence Bell, John Gilbert Taberner, Michael John Back, Georgina Margaret Gray, Raymond Yuen Ming Kwok, Michael Orlov, Bettie Anne McNee - t/a Freehill, Hollingdale & Page
Brian David Kewley, Keith Alfred Robert Skinner, Jeffrey Stephen Kiddle, Denis James Davies, David Leonard Bailey, Martin Moule Hudson, Colin George Polites, Marcus Kirkland Fairbairn, John Alfred Emerson, James Macklin Pfeiffer, Russell David Allen, Peter Algernon Franc Hay, Paul Montgomery, John Balfour Blanch, Richard Geoffrey Eager, Peter Farley Mitchell, Peter Mark Butler, Simon Anthony Yencken, Peter William Stawell, Stephen Marcus Stern, John Linday Cooper, Graeme James Smith, Rayne de Gruchy, Wayne McMaster, Graeme Ross Watson, Maxwell Douglas Ralph Cameron, Frank Parry, Irene Helen Zeitler - t/a Freehill, Hollingdale & Page

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20950/97

COUNSEL: Mr S Rares SC with Mr A Bell for the Plaintiffs
Mr A Meagher SC with Mr M Darke for the Defendants

SOLICITORS: Maurice Blackburn Cashman for the Plaintiffs
Allens Arthur Robinson for the Defendants

- 20 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Roach and Ors v Page and Ors (No.36) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2004] NSWSC 776
Decision Date: 27 August 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Roach and Others versus Page and Others (No. 36) involved multiple parties engaged in a legal dispute concerning the application of further submissions after a judgment had been reserved. The matter was heard in a court that had jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties involved. The fundamental issue before the court was whether the submission of additional arguments after the judgment had been reserved was permissible and if it constituted a question of principle.

The court was required to determine the procedural boundaries within which further submissions could be made after a judgment had been reserved. The primary legal issue was whether the submission of such additional arguments could be considered a question of principle that warranted a departure from the usual procedural rules. The court needed to assess whether the timing and nature of the submissions could impact the fairness and integrity of the judicial process.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the established principles of practice and procedure in relation to post-judgment submissions. It considered the potential implications of allowing further submissions and whether such actions could prejudice the fairness of the proceedings. The court concluded that the submission of additional arguments after a judgment had been reserved did not constitute a question of principle that would justify a departure from the usual procedural rules. Therefore, the court held that such submissions were generally not permissible unless exceptional circumstances warranted a different approach. Consequently, the court denied the application for further submissions in this instance.

Orders