Evans v Smith (No 2)

Case [2025] NSWCA 139


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Evans v Smith (No 2) [2025] NSWCA 139
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 26 June 2025
Decision date: 26 June 2025
Before: Ward P and Stern JA at [1]; Adamson JA at [32]
Decision:

1.   The notice of motion filed on 30 May 2025 is dismissed with costs.

Catchwords:

JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – amending, varying and setting aside – order sought under r 36.16(3A) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (UCPR) to recall and replace order declaring scope of extended curtilage with a declaration extending the curtilage to enable vehicular access across appellants’ land – perceived misapprehension as to matters relating to vehicular access – application to vary costs orders

COSTS – party/party – application for variation of costs orders – application for indemnity costs of motion

Legislation Cited:

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) rr 36.16(3A), 42.1

Cases Cited:

Autodesk Inc v Dyason (No 2) (1993) 176 CLR 300; [1993] HCA 6

Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225; [1993] FCA 801

Evans v Smith [2025] NSWCA 102

J-Corp Pty Ltd v Australian Builders Labourers Federated Union of Workers (No 2) (1993) 46 IR 301; [1993] FCA 70

Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534; [1990] HCA 59

Majak v Rose (No 5) [2017] NSWCA 238

Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72; [1998] HCA 11

Power v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (No 2) (2014) 98 ATR 75; [2014] NSWCA 77

Ranclose Investments Pty Ltd v Leda Management Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] NSWCA 13

State of New South Wales v Hollingsworth (No 2) [2023] NSWCA 283

Category:Consequential orders
Parties: David John Evans (First Appellant)
Carolyn Anne Evans (Second Appellant)
Kenneth Linton Smith (First Respondent)
Office of the Registrar General (Second Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
N Hutley SC with LW Chan (Appellants)
M Maconachie with M Summerhayes (First Respondent)

Solicitors:
Aubrey Brown Lawyers (Appellants)
Maher Legal (First Respondent)
Office of the Registrar General (Second Respondent) (Submitting Appearance)
File Number(s): 2024/00308533
Publication restriction: Nil
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Jurisdiction:
Equity – Real Property List
Citation:

[2024] NSWSC 981

Date of Decision:
8 August 2024
Before:
Peden J
File Number(s):
2023/00191201

JUDGMENT

  1. WARD P and STERN JA: On 16 May 2025, this Court published reasons for judgment in this matter (Evans v Smith [2025] NSWCA 102) in a dispute concerning an adverse possession claim over rural land on the Central Coast in New South Wales. By majority (Adamson JA dissenting not as to the outcome of the appeal but as to the extent of the relief granted), the appellants’ appeal was allowed and, relevantly for present purposes, an order (Order 3) was made in the following terms at [116]:

(3)   In lieu [of orders 1,7 and 9 made on 8 August 2024 by the primary judge, which were set aside by this…

Continue reading Evans v Smith (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Evans v Smith (No 2) [2025] NSWCA 139
Case
[2025] NSWCA 139
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellants, Evans and Smith, sought to recall and replace an earlier order of the court concerning the scope of an extended curtilage. They contended there was a misapprehension regarding vehicular access across their land, which they sought to address by varying the existing declaration. The application was brought under rule 36.16(3A) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). The respondents also sought indemnity costs for the motion.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellants had established grounds to recall and replace the previous order under UCPR r 36.16(3A). This rule permits the court to recall or vary an order if it was made in the absence of a party, or if there has been a misapprehension of fact or law. A secondary issue concerned the appropriate costs orders, including whether the respondents should be awarded indemnity costs for the motion.

The court dismissed the appellants' application. It found that the appellants had not demonstrated a sufficient basis to satisfy the requirements of rule 36.16(3A). The court was not persuaded that there had been a misapprehension of fact or law that warranted recalling and replacing the original order. Consequently, the application to vary the declaration regarding the extended curtilage was refused.

The notice of motion filed on 30 May 2025 was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The notice of motion filed on 30 May 2025 is dismissed with costs.

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.