Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Lawrence v Gunner (No 3) [2016] NSWCA 18 Hearing dates: 16 February 2016 Date of orders: 19 February 2016 Decision date: 19 February 2016 Before: Gleeson JA Decision: (1) The appellants’ notice of motion filed 22 January 2016 be dismissed with costs.
(2) The respondent’s notice of motion filed 2 November 2015 be dismissed.
(3) The appellants’ costs of the amendment to the notice of appeal in the form of the revised document dated 18 December 2015 shall be the appellants’ costs in the appeal.
(4) The costs of the respondent’s notice of motion filed 2 November 2015, but only up until 18 December 2015, shall be the respondent’s costs in the appeal.Catchwords: PROCEDURE – Judgments and orders – amending, varying and setting aside – application for variation of existing stay – whether material change in circumstances or discovery of new material not reasonably obtainable during trial – whether special grounds for further evidence are made out – whether additional parties should be joined as respondents to the appeal – leave for subpoenas for production of documents – where no special grounds for further evidence established – where no legitimate forensic purpose identified – application to strike out amended cross-claim – where no relevant error of primary judge identified Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), s 83(1)
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 99
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) ss 48, 75A(7), 75A(8), 75A(9)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) rr 7.3(1), 13.4, 42.1, 51.31(1), 51.37(1), 51.53(1),Cases Cited: Akins v National Australia Bank (1994) 34 NSWLR 155
Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd (1985) 2 NSWLR 685
Bajramovic v Calubaquib [2015] NSWCA 139
Brimaud v Honeysett Instant Print Pty Ltd (1988) 217 ALR 44
House v The King [1936] HCA 40; 55 CLR 499
Kalifair Pty Ltd v Digi-Tech (Australia) Ltd [2002] NSWCA 383; 55 NSWLR 737
Lawrence v Gunner [2015] NSWCA 322
Lawrence v Gunner (No 2) [2015] NSWCA 395
Serobian v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2009] NSWCA 309
Tjiong v Tjiong [2012] NSWCA 201Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Wayne Lawrence (First Applicant)
Valerie Lawrence (Second Applicant)
Frances Beatrice Gunner (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
First Applicant (Self-represented)
Second Applicant (No appearance)
A Hourigan (Respondent)
Applicants (Self-represented)
Marshall Law (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2015/258609 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction:
- Equity Division
- Citation:
- [2015] NSWSC 944; [2015] NSWSC 1229
- Date of Decision:
- 16 July 2015; 21 August 2015
- Before:
- Stevenson J
- File Number(s):
- 2012/277403
Judgment
-
GLEESON JA: Before the Court on 16 February 2016 were three motions in an appeal relating to judgments delivered by Stevenson J on 16 July 2015 and 21 August 2015: Lawrence v Gunner; Gunner v Lawrence [2015] NSWSC 944 (the principal judgment); Lawrence v Gunner; Gunner v Lawrence [2015] NSWSC 1229 (the supplementary judgment).
-
The notice of appeal was filed on 8 October 2015. The…
Continue reading Lawrence v Gunner (No 3)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Lawrence v Gunner (No 3) [2016] NSWCA 18
- Case
- [2016] NSWCA 18
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether there had been a material change in circumstances or the discovery of new material not reasonably obtainable during the trial, which would constitute special grounds for admitting further evidence. The court also considered whether the appellants had established a legitimate forensic purpose for their applications concerning subpoenas and whether any relevant error by the primary judge had been identified to warrant striking out the amended cross-claim.
Gleeson JA dismissed the appellants' application to vary the stay, finding that no special grounds for further evidence had been established and no legitimate forensic purpose was identified for the subpoena applications. The court also dismissed the respondent's motion to strike out the amended cross-claim, indicating no relevant error of the primary judge was identified. The court made specific orders regarding the costs of various interlocutory applications and amendments.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) The appellants’ notice of motion filed 22 January 2016 be dismissed with costs.
(2) The respondent’s notice of motion filed 2 November 2015 be dismissed.
(3) The appellants’ costs of the amendment to the notice of appeal in the form of the revised document dated 18 December 2015 shall be the appellants’ costs in the appeal.
(4) The costs of the respondent’s notice of motion filed 2 November 2015, but only up until 18 December 2015, shall be the respondent’s costs in the appeal.
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.