Council of the City of Sydney v Goldspar Australia Pty Limited [2006] FCA 641

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Council of the City of Sydney v Goldspar Australia Pty Limited [2006] FCA 641 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether Order 29 order should be made after interim reasons delivered where opposed Federal Court Rules, O 29

Council of the City of Sydney v Goldspar Australia Pty Limited [2006] FCA 472 related

Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders' Labourers' Federation v Employment Advocate (2001) 114 FCR 22 cited

Reading Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Mutual Provident Society (1999) 217 ALR 495 cited

Save the Ridge Inc v Commonwealth [2005] FCAFC 203 cited

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SYDNEY v GOLDSPAR AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED (ACN 002 705 991) AND DOUGLAS RAWSON-HARRIS; GOLDSPAR AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED (ACN 002 705 991) v COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SYDNEY

NSD 728 OF 2002

GYLES J

26 MAY 2006

SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 728 OF 2002

BETWEEN: COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SYDNEY

APPLICANT

AND: GOLDSPAR AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED (ACN 002 705 991)

FIRST RESPONDENT

DOUGLAS RAWSON-HARRIS

SECOND RESPONDENT

GOLDSPAR AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED (ACN 002 705 991)

CROSS-CLAIMANT

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SYDNEY

CROSS-RESPONDENT

JUDGE: GYLES J

DATE: 26 MAY 2006

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR RULING 1 On 3 May 2006 I delivered what was called Reasons for Judgment. The only order made was that the proceeding stand over to a date to be fixed (Council of the City of Sydney v Goldspar Australia Pty Limited [2006] FCA 472). The last paragraph of the reasons was as follows: 'It follows that Goldspar is entitled to damages for the repudiation by the Council of its obligations under the contract. During the course of submissions, it was agreed that the quantum of damages would not be dealt with before I had decided issues of liability. I have now done so and the matter will stand over to enable the hearing on damages to be scheduled and for the parties to raise any other issues arising out of these reasons.' 2 The matter was stood over to 24 May 2006. The following exchange then took place. '… MR CONDON: Your Honour, I'm not certain your Honour made a formal order under order 29, separating the issue.