Lambourne v Baker - [2024] NSWCA 280

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lambourne v Baker [2024] NSWCA 280
Hearing dates: 18 November 2024; 25 November 2024
Date of orders: 25 November 2024
Decision date: 25 November 2024
Before: Price AJA
Decision:
(1) Notices of motion 11 and 12 are dismissed.

Catchwords:
JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – application to set aside orders under r 36.17 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) – the slip rule – no basis established to set aside orders

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Supreme Court Act1970 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2003) 77 ALJR 1088; [2003] HCA 26
Johnston v The Greens NSW (No 2) [2021] NSWCA 291
Lambourne v Baker (No 2) [2021] NSWCA 282
Lambourne v Baker (No 5) [2024] NSWCA 241
Lambourne v Baker (No 4) [2024] NSWCA 132
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Limited 162 CLR 24; [1986] HCA 40

Category: Consequential orders
Parties: Marc Alan Lambourne (First Plaintiff)
Glenn Craig Pollett (Second Plaintiff)
Punters Show Pty Ltd (Third Plaintiff)
Dallas Matthew Baker (First Defendant)
Todd Cameron Buckingham (Second Defendant)
BetMakers Technology Group Limited (Third Defendant)
12Follow Pty Ltd (Fourth Defendant)
Operis Momentus Pty Ltd (Fifth Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Cheshire SC (Defendants)
Solicitors:
M Lambourne (First Plaintiff, Second Plaintiff, Third Plaintiff) (Self represented)
Vintage Law (Defendants)

File Number(s): 2019/00407870
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Supreme Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Court of Appeal

Citation:

[2024] NSWCA 132
[2024] NSWCA 241

Date of Decision:

31 May 2024
11 October 2024

Before:

Basten AJA
Ward P, Mitchelmore and Kirk JJA

File Number(s):

2019/00407870

Ex Tempore JUDGMENT

This morning, I granted leave to Mr Marc Alan Lambourne to appear on behalf of Mr Glenn Pollett and Punters Show Pty Ltd. For convenience, I will refer to them as the plaintiffs as that is how they are referred to in the notices of motion. The plaintiffs have filed three notices of motion. They will be referred to by the proceeding numbers that they bear. Proceeding number 9 was filed on 30 October 2024. The plaintiffs have informed me that they are not proceeding with that motion and that motion has been formally dismissed. Notices of motion 11 and 12 were filed on 13 November 2024.
The defendants to notice of motion 11, Dallas Baker, Todd Cameron Buckingham, BetMakers Technology Group Ltd, 12Follow Pty Ltd and Operis Momentus Group Pty Ltd, are also defendants in notice of motion 12. In notice of motion 12, the principal registrar of the Supreme Court, the prothonotary of the Supreme Court, the registrar of the Court of Appeal and the defendants' solicitor have been joined as defendants. When the notices of motion were before me on 18 November, I informed the plaintiffs that notice of motion 12 was improperly commenced against the principal registrar, the prothonotary, the registrar, and the defendant’s solicitor. They were not parties to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Lambourne v Baker

Details

AGLC: Lambourne v Baker [2024] NSWCA 280
Case: [2024] NSWCA 280
Decision Date: 25 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Lambourne v Baker*, heard by Price AJA, the applicant sought to set aside orders previously made by the court. The dispute concerned the application of rule 36.17 of the *Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005* (NSW), commonly referred to as the "slip rule," which allows for the correction of clerical mistakes or errors arising from an accidental slip or omission in judgments or orders.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had established a sufficient basis to invoke the slip rule and have the existing orders set aside. This required the court to consider the nature of the alleged mistakes or omissions and whether they fell within the scope of rule 36.17.

Price AJA determined that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the previous orders contained any clerical mistakes or errors arising from an accidental slip or omission as contemplated by rule 36.17. Consequently, the court found no grounds to set aside the existing orders.

Accordingly, the notices of motion numbered 11 and 12 were dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Notices of motion 11 and 12 are dismissed.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Lambourne v Baker [2024] NSWCA 280
Hearing dates:	18 November 2024; 25 November 2024
Date of orders:	25 November 2024
Decision date:	25 November 2024
Before:	Price AJA
Decision:	(1) Notices of motion 11 and 12 are dismissed.
Catchwords:	JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – application to set aside orders under r 36.17 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) – the slip rule – no basis established to set aside orders
Legislation Cited:	Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) Supreme Court Act1970 (NSW) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2003) 77 ALJR 1088; [2003] HCA 26 Johnston v The Greens NSW (No 2) [2021] NSWCA 291 Lambourne v Baker (No 2) [2021] NSWCA 282 Lambourne v Baker (No 5) [2024] NSWCA 241 Lambourne v Baker (No 4) [2024] NSWCA 132 Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Limited 162 CLR 24; [1986] HCA 40
Category:	Consequential orders
Parties:	Marc Alan Lambourne (First Plaintiff) Glenn Craig Pollett (Second Plaintiff) Punters Show Pty Ltd (Third Plaintiff) Dallas Matthew Baker (First Defendant) Todd Cameron Buckingham (Second Defendant) BetMakers Technology Group Limited (Third Defendant) 12Follow Pty Ltd (Fourth Defendant) Operis Momentus Pty Ltd (Fifth Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: A Cheshire SC (Defendants) Solicitors: M Lambourne (First Plaintiff, Second Plaintiff, Third Plaintiff) (Self represented) Vintage Law (Defendants)
File Number(s):	2019/00407870
Publication restriction:	Nil
Decision under appeal	Court or tribunal: Supreme Court of New South Wales Jurisdiction: Court of Appeal Citation: [2024] NSWCA 132 [2024] NSWCA 241 Date of Decision: 31 May 2024 11 October 2024 Before: Basten AJA Ward P, Mitchelmore and Kirk JJA File Number(s): 2019/00407870