Donkin v AGC (Advances) Ltd [1995] FCA 696

CATCHWORDS PROCEDURE - Application to reopen orders of a Full Court and order at first instance - new evidence relied upon - fraud not alleged - whether jurisdiction to reopen - whether exceptional circumstances - whether all parties given a fair opportunity to adduce evidence at the trial Federal Court Rules 0.35 r.7 Autodesk Inc v Dyason [No 2] (1993) 176 CLR 300 Charles Bright & Co Ltd v Sellar [1904] 1 KB 6 Chamberlain v Commissioner of Taxation (1991) 28 FCR 21 Flower v Lloyd [1877] 6 Ch D 296 Haig v Minister Administering the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (1994) 85 LGERA 143 Monroe Schneider v Raberem [No 2] (1992) 32 FCR 234 Owens Bank Ltd v Bracco [1992] AC 443 Ex parte Tewkesbury (1898) 19 NSWR 440 Wentworth v Rogers (No 9) (1987) 8 NSWLR 393 COLIN JOHN DONKIN and HEATHER KAY DONKIN v AGC (ADVANCES) LTD No. QG 107 of 1989 Black CJ, Davies and Whitlam JJ 30 August 1995 Melbourne (Heard in Brisbane)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. QG 107 of 1989 ) GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: COLIN JOHN DONKIN and HEATHER KAY DONKIN Applicants AND: AGC (ADVANCES) LTD Respondent CORAM: Black CJ, Davies and Whitlam JJ. DATE: 30 August 1995 PLACE: Melbourne (Heard in Brisbane) MINUTES OF ORDER THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The applications be dismissed. 2. The first-named applicant pay the respondent's costs. NOTE:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. QG 107 of 1989 GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: COLIN JOHN DONKIN and HEATHER KAY DONKIN Applicants AND: AGC (ADVANCES) LTD Respondent COURT: Black CJ, Davies & Whitlam JJ DATE: 30 August 1995 PLACE: Melbourne (heard in Brisbane) REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BLACK CJ On 9 August 1991 Beaumont J dismissed an application brought by Colin John Donkin and his wife, Heather Kay Donkin, against the respondent, AGC (Advances) Ltd ("AGC"). Mr and Mrs Donkin had sought damages from the respondent for losses they claimed to have suffered as a result of, amongst other things, the negligent failure of the respondent to advise them of the steps available to them to minimise the risks of an adverse fluctuation in the rate of exchange in connection with foreign currency borrowing transaction. Mr and Mrs Donkin then appealed to a Full Court of this Court which, in December 1991, dismissed their appeal. An application for special leave to appeal the High Court was subsequently filed but the application was not pursued and in April 1992 it was dismissed. There are presently before this Full Court applications by Mr Donkin for an extension of time in which to appeal against the order made by Beaumont J in August 1991 dismissing his application and for "special leave" to bring an application to set aside the judgment of Beaumont J insofar as it relates to the quantum of damages.