Creasy & Ors v Hot Holdings Pty Ltd & Anor [1999] WASC 69 - WASC 1999 case summary — Zoe

Parties

Applicant/Plaintiff:

# Creasy & Ors

Respondent/Defendant:

Hot Holdings Pty Ltd & Anor \[1999\] WASC 69

Cases Cited (40)

Creasy & Ors v Hot Holdings Pty Ltd & Anor [1999] WASC 69 (23 June 1999)

Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission [1992] HCA 10; (1992) 175 CLR 564

Craig v South Australia [1995] HCA 58; (1995) 184 CLR 163

Director of Public Works v Ho Po Sang & Ors [1961] AC 901

Hunter Resources Ltd v Melville [1988] HCA 5; (1988) 164 CLR 234

Laws v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal [1990] HCA 31; (1990) 170 CLR 70

Livesey v New South Wales Bar Association [1983] HCA 17; (1983) 151 CLR 288

Maxwell v Murphy [1957] HCA 7; (1957) 96 CLR 261

Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Limited [1986] HCA 40; (1986) 162 CLR 24

Nicholas v The Queen [1998] HCA 9; (1988) 151 ALR 312

Pancontinental Goldmining Areas Pty Ltd v Minister for Mines [1989] WAR 169

R v Watson; Ex parte Armstrong [1976] HCA 39; (1976) 136 CLR 248

Re Finance Sector Union of Australia; Ex parte Illaton Pty Ltd [1992] HCA 30; (1992) 66 ALJR 583

Re JRL: Ex parte CJL [1986] HCA 39; (1986) 161 CLR 342

Re Polites; Ex parte Hoyts Corporation Pty Ltd (No 2) [1991] HCA 25; (1991) 173 CLR 78

Webb v The Queen [1994] HCA 30; (1994) 181 CLR 41

16 Counsel for Hot Holdings contended that the issue as to whether there had been compliance with s 118 could and should have been raised before either the High Court or the Full Court in 1996 and that, as it had not been raised then, the finding of the warden should stand. He submitted that, for the reasons stated in Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd [1981] HCA 45; (1981) 147 CLR 589, it would be quite wrong now to re-submit this matter for decision by the Full Court. In my opinion the contention must fail. Although the warden had expressed his finding on the issue when he decided to hold the ballot, it was not until 8 January 1998 that he reported to the Minister as to what he saw to be "the final situation". Only then did he recommend the application of Hot Holdings in priority to the others. As counsel for the applicants pointed out, until then it was not known what he might ultimately recommend. Meanwhile, his finding of compliance with s 118 had to be provisional only. There was no basis upon which to challenge it before either the High Court or the Full Court. The decision in Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (supra) has no application in these circumstances.

(1992) 175 CLR 564

(1983) 57 ALJR 376

(1995) 184 CLR 163

(1988) 164 CLR 234

(1986) 72 ALR 23

(1990) 170 CLR 70

(1983) 151 CLR 288

(1957) 96 CLR 261

(1986) 162 CLR 24

(1997) 18 WAR 408

(1988) 151 ALR 312

(1992) 26 NSWLR 450

(1976) 136 CLR 248

(1992) 66 ALJR 583

(1986) 161 CLR 342

(1991) 173 CLR 78

(1988) 12 NSWLR 358

(1994) 14 WAR 120

(1977) 17 SASR 321

(1991) 5 WAR 453

(1994) 181 CLR 41

(1996) 185 CLR 149

(1981) 147 CLR 589

Creasy & Ors v Hot Holdings Pty Ltd & Anor [1999] WASC 69

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (27 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (40)

Creasy & Ors v Hot Holdings Pty Ltd & Anor [1999] WASC 69 (23 June 1999)