Dungowan Manly Pty Ltd v McLaughlin (No 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 4 min read

Court of Appeal

New South Wales

Case Title: Dungowan Manly Pty Ltd v McLaughlin (No 2)
Medium Neutral Citation: [2012] NSWCA 258
Hearing Date(s): On the papers
Decision Date: 22 August 2012
Jurisdiction:
Before: Bathurst CJ at [1]; 
Beazley JA at [2]; 
Macfarlan JA at [3]
Decision:

(1) The orders of this Court of 19 June 2012 are corrected, pursuant to UCPR 36.17, so that the date of 26 February 2010 is substituted for the date of 16 March 2010 wherever appearing in orders 3, 4 and 7.

(2) Judgment for the respondents against the appellant for $632,038.95 (inclusive of interest of $118,909.50).

(3) The Court notes that these orders do not affect the balance of orders made:

a) at first instance on 26 February 2010, including order 3 as amended on 20 April 2010 that the Defendant pay the Plaintiffs $14,769.97 or the obligation of the Plaintiffs to pay interest thereon pursuant to s 101 Civil Procedure Act 2005.

b) on 19 June 2012 concerning the appeal, cross-appeal and costs (otherwise than as set out above).

(4) The Court notes the agreement of the parties that the appellant is not entitled to levy the respondents for any contribution to payment of the damages, interest or costs awarded to them.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords: APPEAL - consequential orders - application for indemnity costs - no issue of principle
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005
Cases Cited:
Texts Cited:
Category: Consequential orders
Parties: Dungowan Manly Pty Ltd (Appellant)
Patrick David McLaughlin (First Respondent)
Jennifer Therese McLaughlin (Second Respondent)
Representation
- Counsel: Counsel:
D A Priestley (Appellant)
P Roberts SC/S J Burchett/S Alexandre-Hughes (Respondents)
- Solicitors: Solicitors:
Pikes Lawyers (Appellant)
Turner Freeman (Respondents)
File number(s): CA 2010/74510
Decision Under Appeal
- Court / Tribunal:
- Before: Ward J
- Date of Decision:
- Citation: McLaughlin v Dungowan Manly Pty Limited [2010] NSWSC 187; McLaughlin v Dungowan Manly Pty Limited [2010] NSWSC 306 (costs)
- Court File Number(s) SC 2006/258866
Publication Restriction:

JUDGMENT

  1. BATHURST CJ: I agree with Macfarlan JA.

  2. BEAZLEY JA: I agree with Macfarlan JA.

  3. MACFARLAN JA: The Court delivered judgment in this appeal on 19 June 2012, leaving the amount of interest to be included in the judgment in favour of the McLaughlins to be determined by agreement of the parties or, failing agreement, by the Court, following lodgement of submissions.

  4. The parties have agreed upon this and various other matters. They are in dispute only concerning an application of the McLaughlins for their appeal costs from 25 May 2010 to be paid on the indemnity basis. Their application is founded…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Dungowan Manly Pty Ltd v McLaughlin (No 2) and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2012] NSWCA 258
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Dungowan Manly Pty Ltd v McLaughlin (No 2)*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal, comprising Bathurst CJ, Beazley and Macfarlan JJA, considered an application for consequential orders following an earlier decision. The dispute concerned the correction of dates in previous orders and the finalisation of judgment amounts and costs.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether to correct an error in the dates specified in certain orders made on 19 June 2012, and to confirm the quantum of judgment for the respondents against the appellant, inclusive of interest. The Court also addressed the implications of these orders on the balance of orders made at first instance and on appeal, and whether the appellant was entitled to seek contribution from the respondents for payments made.

The Court applied Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, specifically Rule 36.17, to correct the clerical error in the dates of the orders. The Court reasoned that the correction was necessary to accurately reflect the intended orders of the Court. The Court then entered judgment for the respondents against the appellant for a specified sum, inclusive of interest, and noted that this judgment did not affect other outstanding orders. Crucially, the Court recorded the agreement of the parties that the appellant was not entitled to seek contribution from the respondents for the damages, interest, or costs awarded.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The orders of this Court of 19 June 2012 are corrected, pursuant to UCPR 36.17, so that the date of 26 February 2010 is substituted for the date of 16 March 2010 wherever appearing in orders 3, 4 and 7.

(2) Judgment for the respondents against the appellant for $632,038.95 (inclusive of interest of $118,909.50).

(3) The Court notes that these orders do not affect the balance of orders made:

a) at first instance on 26 February 2010, including order 3 as amended on 20 April 2010 that the Defendant pay the Plaintiffs $14,769.97 or the obligation of the Plaintiffs to pay interest thereon pursuant to s 101 Civil Procedure Act 2005.

b) on 19 June 2012 concerning the appeal, cross-appeal and costs (otherwise than as set out above).

(4) The Court notes the agreement of the parties that the appellant is not entitled to levy the respondents for any contribution to payment of the damages, interest or costs awarded to them.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

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.