Golden Star Resources Ltd v Keryn Beatrice Rosel

Golden Star Resources Ltd sought a correction to an order which had been made by consent, whereby receivers were appointed to property owned by the defendant, Keryn Beatrice Rosel. The plaintiffs argued that the order did not explicitly authorise the receivers to receive rental income from the property. The dispute came before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central legal issue was whether the receivers were entitled to receive rental income from the property under the terms of the consent order. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the plaintiffs were entitled to costs of the proceedings.

The court considered the language of the consent order and noted that it did not explicitly mention the receivers' entitlement to rental income. The plaintiffs argued that the omission should be rectified in line with the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. The court agreed with the plaintiffs' interpretation, stating that the omission was likely an oversight and that the receivers should be entitled to rental income from the date of the order. The court also found that the plaintiffs were entitled to costs under the rules. The consent order was amended to include the phrase “including the receivers’ remuneration” at the end of the relevant sub-paragraph, and the receivers were entitled to receive any rental income from the date of the order. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs of and incidental to the proceedings.