HOOKER CORPORATION LTD v DARLING HARBOUR AUTHORITY HARRAH'S v DARLING HARBOUR AUTHORITY DARLING HARBOUR AUTHORITY v HOOKER CORPORATION LTD (No 2) [1988] NSWCA 68

HOOKER CORPORATION LTD v DARLING HARBOUR AUTHORITY HARRAH'S v DARLING HARBOUR AUTHORITY DARLING HARBOUR AUTHORITY v HOOKER CORPORATION LTD (No 2)

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

KirBy P, MAHONEY and CLARKE JJA 17 November 1988 [1988] NSWCA 68

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — appeal — part heard — conclusions on certain questions stated by Court of Appeal at request of parties — whether appeal should proceed or matters be referred back to trial judge — trial judge states conclusions on factual issues — Court concludes appeal should continue before it, request by party to state reasons for order — whether reasons required — held: (1) Whether or not there was an obligation to state reasons, the matters leading to the Court's conclusion should be recorded: Housing Commissioner of New South Wales v Tatmar Pastoral Company Pty Limited [1983] 3 NSWLR 378, 386; Public Service Board of New South Wales vy Osmond (1985-6) 159 CLR 656, 663 applied; (2) In the absence of one of the judges in the part heard appeal the Court could be re-constituted: Cotogno v Lamb (1985) 3 NSWLR 221, 223 applied; and (3) In the circumstances of the case, the appeal being part heard and by way of re-hearing, it should continue before the Court of Appeal. SUPREME COURT ACT 1970, s75A.

Kirby P, Mahoney and Clarke JJA This Court (constituted by Mahoney, Priestley and Clarke JJA) commenced the hearing of an appeal against the judgment given by Rogers J in this matter. The parties asked, and the Court agreed, that it should, in the course of the hearing of the appeal, determine certain questions in advance of other questions.

Having heard argument extending over several days, the Court concluded that, in what had happened, there was a binding legal agreement between the Darling Harbour Authority and the two companies. In accordance with the agreed procedure, it informed the parties of its conclusion. See Hooker Corporation Limited v Darling Harbour Authority (Court of Appeal, 20 September 1988, unreported).