CITATION: MAKEIG v DERWENT (NO 2) [2000] NSWCA 142 FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40198/99 HEARING DATE(S): 10/03/00 JUDGMENT DATE:
7 June 2000PARTIES :
Peter Makeig
Peter DerwentJUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ; Mason P; Heydon JA
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) :6144/97 LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :Puckeridge DCJ
COUNSEL: T Molomby / R Rasmussen (Appellant)
C Evatt / G Hansen (Respondent)SOLICITORS: Jennifer E Darin (Appellant)
Carters Law Firm (Respondent)DECISION: Orders made in Makeig v Derwent [2000] NSWCA 136 varied.
- 1 -
THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL40198/99
SPIGELMAN CJ
Wednesday 7 June 2000
MASON P
HEYDON JA
Peter MAKEIG v Peter DERWENT (No 2)
JUDGMENT
2 In par [51] of the judgment, the Chief Justice proposed a series of orders. To those should be added the following:
1 THE COURT: In this matter judgment was handed down on 2 June 2000.
“(vi) The Respondent, if qualified, should have a Certificate under the Suitors Fund Act 1951.”
********
Details
- AGLC
- Makeig v Derwent (No 2) [2000] NSWCA 142
- Case
- [2000] NSWCA 142
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Makeig v Derwent (No 2)*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered an appeal concerning the interpretation and application of an earlier order made in *Makeig v Derwent* [2000] NSWCA 136. The specific nature of the dispute between the parties, Makeig and Derwent, and the precise subject matter of the original orders were not detailed in the provided text, beyond the fact that the appeal sought variation of those prior orders.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the existing orders made in the previous proceeding were appropriate and should be maintained, or if they required modification in light of circumstances or arguments presented in the current appeal. This required the Court to re-examine the basis upon which the original orders were made and to assess whether any error had occurred or if changed circumstances warranted a different outcome.
The Court of Appeal, comprising Spigelman CJ, Mason P, and Heydon JA, ultimately determined that the original orders were not to stand in their entirety. The Court varied the orders previously made in *Makeig v Derwent* [2000] NSWCA 136, indicating a modification of the legal or practical effect of the earlier judgment.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the existing orders made in the previous proceeding were appropriate and should be maintained, or if they required modification in light of circumstances or arguments presented in the current appeal. This required the Court to re-examine the basis upon which the original orders were made and to assess whether any error had occurred or if changed circumstances warranted a different outcome.
The Court of Appeal, comprising Spigelman CJ, Mason P, and Heydon JA, ultimately determined that the original orders were not to stand in their entirety. The Court varied the orders previously made in *Makeig v Derwent* [2000] NSWCA 136, indicating a modification of the legal or practical effect of the earlier judgment.
Orders
Orders of the court
Orders made in Makeig v Derwent [2000] NSWCA 136 varied.
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.