High Court of Australia
"Us ey
ORDER
Appeal dismissed with costs.
OFFSHORE OIL _N.L. and ANOTHER
JUDGMENT Coral)
ve
OFFSHORE OIL N.L. and ANOTHER
It is the ordinary rule that an appellant will not be @llowed to raise, on appeal, a ground upon which reliance was not placed in the court below if it is possible that evidence could have been given which could have prevented
that ground from succeeding.
There is nothing to take the present case out of that ordinary rule. 'The Court is not persuaded that the proposed ground five would not raise considerations of fact in wespect of which there may be relevant evidence that is not before the Court. In that regard, it is important to-note that the second respondents maintain that there would be
such evidence.
In particular, it appears possible that evidence could be given relating, inter alia, to the nature of the subject matter of the forfeiture and the surrounding circumstances existing at the time of the making of the «<ontract. In accordance with this principle, it follows
that the application to amend the notice of appeal must be
refused.
wee ae
IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
_. SQUTHERN ©)
OFFSHORE OIL N.L. AND ANOTHER
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(oral)
Judgment delivered at .... canberra,
on
RM74/30574
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate