Coastwide Fabrication & Erection Pty Ltd v Honeysett (No 2)
Case
•
[2009] NSWCA 291
•18 September 2009
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Coastwide Fabrication & Erection Pty Ltd v Honeysett (No. 2) [2009] NSWCA 291
[2009] NSWCA 291
18 September 2009
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Coastwide Fabrication & Erection Pty Ltd (the appellant) applied to the New South Wales Court of Appeal to vary costs orders previously made. The application was brought after the time reserved for seeking leave to make such an application had expired.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether it possessed the power to grant the appellant's application to vary the costs orders, notwithstanding that the application was made outside the stipulated time limit.
The Court applied the principles established in *Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Meredith (No 2)* [2008] NSWCA 133. This precedent held that once a court has made a final order, it generally loses the power to vary or set aside that order, except in limited circumstances such as fraud or a fundamental mistake. In this instance, the Court found no such exceptional circumstances existed and that the time limit for seeking leave to vary had expired. Consequently, the Court determined it lacked the power to entertain the application.
The appellant's application to vary the costs orders was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the application.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether it possessed the power to grant the appellant's application to vary the costs orders, notwithstanding that the application was made outside the stipulated time limit.
The Court applied the principles established in *Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Meredith (No 2)* [2008] NSWCA 133. This precedent held that once a court has made a final order, it generally loses the power to vary or set aside that order, except in limited circumstances such as fraud or a fundamental mistake. In this instance, the Court found no such exceptional circumstances existed and that the time limit for seeking leave to vary had expired. Consequently, the Court determined it lacked the power to entertain the application.
The appellant's application to vary the costs orders was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the application.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Appeal
-
Jurisdiction
-
Limitation Periods
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Kennedy v Stockland Developments Pty Ltd (No 3) [2011] NSWLEC 249
Cases Citing This Decision
9
Bluth v Boyded Industries Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2024] NSWCA 194
Boateng v Dharamdas
[2019] NSWCA 233
Cases Cited
2
Statutory Material Cited
1
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Meredith (No 2)
[2008] NSWCA 133
Kekatos v Stafford
[2009] NSWCA 219