IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA. j 'Grunt @ ore Great Boulder Pty Gold Hines Ltd REASONS FOR JUDGMENT. Judgment delivered dhe tpeuxne cam 1 5, Gon ri to | on. 98R Rovemher4957. SSUEDT AMD Oia 3 = si BiGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA + M&LGOURNE 9th Hove ber 1937 "in my opinion this application should be dismissed, The First part of the application sesks 4 variation of the dudgment given by the Court with reference to the date shich hag been preserived by the Court in relation to an aescunt orderca by the Court. The date wae fixed se the 1st May 1935 e@ being @ date upon which the Company became aware that the trivatere wore working outside theiz ground. it was held that the Company was mot entitled to remedy auring the period beginning on that date and extending to the time when notice of eancellation of the tribute agreement wan served on the trivaters. it is now sought by the tributere to heave an alteration made in the juignent hy substituting cesessecese (read@ from application)..coccsauvecment. The Court fixed the date of the ist Kay 1955 having regard to the evidence which the tributera hed given upon this very question. it was @ question which was in issue from the beginning of the proceedings, Evidence was given upon it and I see no reason why the matter should be re-opened, 'The judgment wae given in verth, No application wae made in relation to these matters in Perth, or in Adelaide where the Court sat for sone tine after ite sittings in Perth, and it is now & month sinee the Judgment was given, Ag to the second part of the application 1 ese no Peason to vary the order nade a to/éosta, uhich was @ care fully considereé order made in view of all the eirounstances a of the ease, 'There is no right in « party, in effect, to seek to appeal from a judgment given on appeal ty this court, where there ia ne suggestion that there hae been any failure to consider the matter in ali ite aspects. in wy opinion the application should be diemiesed with eoate," 28h Sue pas te: Pe i agree in the view that we ought not now to order an enquiry Ge to the time at which the respondent Company firet becane aware thet the apyellante ware winning ore from a camter lode outside the tritute, i think the question when they becane 86 aware was fairly in ieque before the Yarden end there io foree in the objections to ailoving it te be reconsidered, on the materials before us, i sm satiefied that in fixing tot ley 1935 we tock # date fayoureble te the appellants. QBAL JUAGH Re HOTLEBNAR ds "I ageee, anc i do mot think any injustices is being done to the trivuters in refusing thie application".