Manwelland Pty Ltd v Dames & Moore Pty Ltd

The court was presented with an application from Manwelland Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, to reopen a matter against Dames & Moore Pty Ltd, the defendant, to adduce further evidence. This application was made after the reasons for judgment had been published. The plaintiff sought to correct a mathematical error in the damages calculation, arguing that it had not been given an opportunity to correct the error prior to the judgment. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff was entitled to reopen the matter to adduce further evidence after the reasons for judgment had been published, and if so, whether this was justified due to the mathematical error. The court also needed to consider the appropriate approach to assessing the plaintiff's entitlement to costs, particularly in light of the defendant's Calderbank offer and the amount recoverable in the Magistrates Court. The court needed to determine whether the error in the damages calculation contributed to by the defendant warranted a different approach to costs.

The court found that the plaintiff's application to reopen the matter was justified as it had not been given an opportunity to correct the mathematical error prior to the judgment. The court acknowledged the significance of the error and its impact on the final outcome. Regarding costs, the court considered the Calderbank offer and the amount recoverable in the Magistrates Court, ultimately deciding on an appropriate approach to costs that reflected the error in the damages calculation. The court exercised its discretion in a manner that balanced the parties' interests and the circumstances of the case.

The court ordered that the matter be reopened to allow the plaintiff to adduce further evidence regarding the mathematical error in the damages calculation. In relation to costs, the court determined that the plaintiff was entitled to a specific amount, taking into account the Calderbank offer and the error in the damages calculation. This decision recognised the need for a fair and balanced outcome that reflected the unique circumstances of the case.