Dungowan Manly Pty Ltd v McLaughlin (No 2)

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.