Sanda v PTTEP Australasia (Ashmore Cartier) Pty Ltd (No 4)

The matter before the court was an application by the applicant, Sanda, to extend the limitation period to bring proceedings. The respondent, PTTEP Australasia (Ashmore Cartier) Pty Ltd, opposed the application. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. Sanda sought to bring proceedings against PTTEP for alleged breaches of contract and other claims arising out of an agreement concerning the Ashmore Cartier oil field. Sanda contended that the limitation period for bringing the proceedings should be extended due to circumstances that allegedly prevented timely action.

The court was required to determine whether Sanda's application to extend the limitation period was successful and, if so, whether Sanda should pay PTTEP's costs of the application. The court also needed to consider whether Sanda was seeking an indulgence from the court. In making these determinations, the court examined the circumstances that allegedly prevented Sanda from taking timely action and assessed whether these circumstances justified extending the limitation period.

The court found that Sanda's application to extend the limitation period was successful but held that Sanda should pay PTTEP's costs of the application. The court determined that Sanda was indeed seeking an indulgence from the court by requesting an extension of the limitation period. The court reasoned that while the application was successful, Sanda's failure to act promptly constituted a significant delay that warranted the imposition of costs on Sanda. The court considered it appropriate for Sanda to bear the costs of the application as a consequence of the delay and the need for an extension of the limitation period.

The final orders of the court required Sanda to pay PTTEP's costs of the interlocutory application dated 23 February 2017. This decision was made in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011, which governs the entry of orders in the Federal Court.