Harmer v Hare (No 2)

In *Harmer v Hare (No 2)*, the plaintiff sought to amend a notice of motion filed outside the time permitted by rule 36.16 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). The original judgment had not been challenged in subsequent proceedings, and the plaintiff's motion sought to claim interest on a costs order made in that original judgment. The defendant argued that the motion was out of time and that the proposed amendments sought to disturb the original judgment, rather than merely correct a slip.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the slip rule under rule 36.17 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 was enlivened, whether the amended notice of motion sought relief consequential on the judgment, and whether the motion sought to disturb the judgment. The court considered the operation of rule 36.4 concerning when a costs order takes effect and the time limits for setting aside or varying judgments under rule 36.16.

The court reasoned that the plaintiff's application was not a mere correction of a slip under rule 36.17, but rather an attempt to obtain a new order for interest that was not part of the original judgment. The court found that the amended notice of motion sought to disturb the original judgment by introducing a claim for interest that had not been sought or ordered previously. Consequently, the court held that the motion was out of time and that the slip rule did not apply.

The plaintiff's amended motion was dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the motion.