Court of Appeal
New South Wales
Case Title: Beck v Weinstock;Beck v L W Furniture (Consolidated) Pty Ltd Medium Neutral Citation: [2012] NSWCA 289 Hearing Date(s): 10 July 2012 Decision Date: 13 September 2012 Before: McColl JA at [1]
Campbell JA at [2]
Meagher JA at [83]Decision: In matter 2007/287773
(1) Grant leave to appeal.
(2) Direct the Applicant to file a Notice of Appeal in the form of the draft contained in the White Book within 14 days.
(3) Appeal allowed.
(4) First, Second and Third Respondents to pay the costs of the Applicant of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal.
(5) Respondents to have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 if qualified.
(6) Direct the parties to consult on the orders required to strike out those parts of the Amended Notice of Motion that the Applicants have accepted in argument should be struck out, and amend the Amended Notice of Motion to reflect the striking out and amendments to the Statement of Claim in the 2011 Proceedings that the Applicants have accepted in argument should be made, and
(a) within ten days of the making of these orders file and provide to the Associate of each judge who has heard this matter in this Court an agreed minute of the order to give effect to this direction, with a draft of the Amended Notice of Motion as so amended attached, or
(b) within 14 days of the making of these orders each party file and provide to each such Associate his her or its respective contentions (not exceeding three pages) and draft order concerning the order that should be made to give effect to this direction.
(7) Reserve further consideration of the order that should be made pursuant to the preceding direction.
In matter 2011/11682
(1) Grant leave to appeal.
(2) Direct the Applicant to file a Notice of Appeal in the form of the draft contained in the White Book within 14 days.
(3) Appeal allowed.
(4) Respondents to pay the costs of the Applicant of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal.
(5) Respondents to have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 if qualified.
(6) Direct the parties to consult on the orders required to strike out those parts of the Statement of Claim that the Applicants have accepted in argument should be struck out,
(a) within ten days of the making of these orders file and provide to the Associate of each judge who has heard this matter in this Court an agreed minute of the order to give effect to this direction, with a draft of the Amended Notice of Motion as so amended attached, or
(b) within 14 days of the making of these orders each party file and provide to each such Associate his her or its respective contentions (not exceeding three pages) and draft order concerning the order that should be made to give effect to this direction.
(7) Reserve further…
Continue reading Beck v Weinstock
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Beck v Weinstock [2012] NSWCA 289
- Case
- [2012] NSWCA 289
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether the prior consent judgment operated as a *res judicata*, thereby preventing the plaintiff from pursuing claims related to the further dividends. This required the court to consider the nature of a consent judgment and whether it constituted a judicial determination capable of giving rise to *res judicata*. A further issue concerned the construction of the consent order, specifically whether surrounding circumstances could be used to interpret its effect, and whether the dismissal of all dividend-related claims was implicitly part of the judgment despite the absence of an express order to that effect.
The Court of Appeal held that a party is prevented by *res judicata* from relitigating matters merged in a consent judgment only if that consent judgment is, in substance, a judgment or order of the court. The court noted the longstanding practice of courts recording agreements as judgments or orders, even if those documents contained material not strictly part of the judicial decision. In this instance, the consent order recorded the effect of an agreement between the parties but did not contain further orders dismissing the action. Consequently, the proceedings had terminated otherwise than through a mandatory or prohibitive judicial decision, meaning there was no *res judicata* that barred the institution of new proceedings concerning the contested dividends. The court therefore refused the strike-out application.
Orders
Orders of the court
or determination or adjudication of some question of law or fact, whether such decision takes the form of an express judicial declaration, or is necessarily involved in the command or prohibition which constitutes the judgment or judicial in its coercive or operative aspect.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.