Supercar International Holdings Limited v Sommers; Tinkler Group Holdings Pty Limited v Sommers (No. 2)

The case involves two parties: Supercar International Holdings Limited and Tinkler Group Holdings Pty Limited, both of whom are suing Sommers. The dispute revolves around alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and misuse of confidential information. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiffs sought to recover damages for the alleged breaches, and the defendants challenged the amount of damages awarded.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the damages should be reassessed by an associate judge based on a new argument presented by the defendants, which was not raised during the trial. The defendants argued that the original damages assessment was flawed because it did not consider certain evidence and legal principles that were not previously argued. The court had to determine if it was appropriate to refer the damages assessment to an associate judge to consider this new argument.

In assessing the matter, the court held that it was not appropriate to refer the damages assessment to an associate judge for reassessment. The court found that the new argument presented by the defendants was not a valid basis for reassessing the damages. The court reasoned that the defendants had not demonstrated that the new argument would likely lead to a different outcome in the damages assessment. Furthermore, the court considered that referring the matter to an associate judge would be an inefficient use of judicial resources and potentially unfair to the plaintiffs, who had not had the opportunity to respond to the new argument.

As a result of the court's decision, the original damages assessment remained in place. The court did not order a reassessment of damages by an associate judge, thereby upholding the damages awarded in the original judgment.