NSW Caselaw
Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Polo Enterprises Australia Pty Ltd v Pinctada Hotels and Resorts Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 397 Hearing dates: 26 November 2015 Date of orders: 15 December 2015 Decision date: 15 December 2015 Before: Bathurst CJ at [1]; Ward JA at [2]; Tobias AJA at [88] Decision: 1. Grant an extension of time for the filing of the summons, insofar as the summons seeks leave to appeal from the decision of Bergin CJ in Eq of 10 December 2012, to 13 July 2015. 2. Dismiss the summons seeking leave to appeal with costs Catchwords: APPEAL – leave to appeal – separate determination of question – construction of joint venture agreement – delay – no point of principle – whether fairly arguable case
APPEAL – leave to appeal – interlocutory decision – issue estoppel – orders made by consent – whether any arguable error in application of the principles of issue estoppel on the facts of the case
CONTRACT – construction – joint venture agreement to conduct beach polo event – implied term – whether term should be implied to give business efficacy to clauses in joint venture agreement Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), ss 101, 103 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 28.2 Cases Cited: Be Financial Pty Ltd as Trustee for Be Financial Operations Trust v Das [2012] NSWCA 164 BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings (1977) 180 CLR 266 Carolan v AMF Bowling Pty Ltd t/as Bennetts Green Bowl [1995] NSWCA 69 Clarke v State of New South Wales [2015] NSWCA 27 Jaycar Pty Limited v Lombardo [2011] NSWCA 284 Polo Enterprises Australia Pty Ltd ABN 30117622 v Pinctada Hotels and Resorts Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 756 Polo Enterprises Australia Pty Ltd v Pinctada Hotels and Resorts Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 1518 Tomko v Palasty (No 2) [2007] NSWCA 369; (2007) 71 NSWLR 61 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Polo Enterprises Australia Pty Limited (Applicant) Pinctada Hotels and Resorts Pty Limited (First Respondent) Cable Beach Polo Pty Limited (Second Respondent) Representation: Counsel:
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