Mortimer v Propix Pty Limited

The case of *Mortimer v Propix Pty Limited* concerned an application made by the appellants after judgment had been delivered by the court. The appellants sought to vary the orders previously made, which had included declarations and other relief.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellants were entitled to have the existing orders varied. This involved considering whether an application to vary orders after judgment could be treated analogously to an application to reopen a judgment, and if so, under what circumstances such a variation might be granted. The court also had to determine if the appellants had demonstrated sufficient grounds to justify the proposed amendments to the declarations and other orders.

The court reasoned that an application to vary orders after judgment should generally be refused, drawing an analogy with the principles that govern applications to reopen a judgment. It found that the undertaking given by the appellants was part of an agreed interlocutory arrangement, and there was no basis to strike down this agreement. Furthermore, the court concluded that the appellants had failed to demonstrate any grounds that would warrant varying the existing orders.

Consequently, the court ordered that the orders made on 24 April 2001 be varied in specific ways, primarily to amend the wording of certain declarations to refer to the "First Defendant" rather than "the Defendants" or "the Defendants'". However, the court otherwise dismissed the notice of motion and ordered the appellants to pay the respondent's costs of the motion.