Rapid Metal Developments (Aust) Pty Ltd v Rildean Pty Ltd (No 2) - [2009] NSWSC 1416

CITATION: Rapid Metal Developments (Aust) Pty Ltd v Rildean Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] NSWSC 1416

HEARING DATE(S): 16 December 2009

JUDGMENT DATE :
16 December 2009

JUDGMENT OF: R A Hulme J

DECISION: Defendants' motion dismissed with costs.

CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE - judgments and orders - amending - varying and setting aside - contention that judgment given without appreciation of significance of certain evidence - contention rejected

LEGISLATION CITED: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005

CASES CITED: Autodesk Inc v Dyason (No 2) (1993) 176 CLR 300
Rapid Metal Developments (Aust) Pty Ltd v Rildean Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 571

PARTIES: Rapid Metal Developments (Australia) Pty Limited (Plaintiff)
Anthony De Vries and Riad Tayeh as joint administrators of Rildean Pty Limited (Defendants)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 13806/05

COUNSEL: Mr V Gray (Plaintiff)
Mr M Ashhurst SC (Defendants)

SOLICITORS: JGP Lawyers (Plaintiff)
PMF Legal (Defendants)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

R A Hulme J

16 December 2009

13806/05 Rapid Metal Developments (Aust) Pty Limited v Anthony De Vries & Riad Tayeh as joint administrators of Rildean Pty Limited
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: I heard this matter over a number of days in March 2009. On 26 June 2009 I delivered judgment on the question of liability in favour of the plaintiff and gave directions as to the resolution of issues of quantum and costs. See Rapid Metal Developments (Aust) Pty Ltd v Rildean Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 571 (“the principal judgment”).

2 On 29 June 2009 there was filed on behalf of the defendant a Notice of Motion seeking that the judgment be recalled pursuant to Rule 36.16(3A) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005. Also sought are orders that the plaintiff’s amended statement of claim be dismissed and that the plaintiff pay the defendants’ costs. The plaintiff resists the motion.

3 It was apparently assumed that the judgment would have been entered by the time the Notice of Motion was filed. UCPR r 36.11(2) provides that unless otherwise ordered, a judgment (or order) is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the court’s computerised court record system. This Court has a computerised court record system but a recent inquiry has indicated that although the Court Registry were notified of the judgment, for reasons unknown it was not entered. Accordingly, there is power to set aside or vary the judgment pursuant to UCPR r 36.16(1).

4 I was referred to a number of authorities, the principal one of which was Autodesk Inc v Dyason (No 2) (1993) 176 CLR 300, concerning the power of a court to recall and set aside or vary a judgment or order. It is unnecessary to turn to them because the matter may be dealt with quite briefly.

Basis upon which the defendant seeks to recall the judgment

5 The complex factual background to the matter is set out in detail in the principal judgment. It will suffice for present purposes to say that a threshold issue in the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Rapid Metal Developments (Aust) Pty Ltd v Rildean Pty Ltd (N... and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2009] NSWSC 1416
Decision Date: 16 December 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Rapid Metal Developments (Aust) Pty Ltd sought to amend a previous judgment against them in their dispute with Rildean Pty Ltd. The original judgment involved a complex contractual arrangement and a claim for damages. The applicants argued that the original judgment was made without proper consideration of certain crucial evidence, which they believed would have led to a different outcome. The legal issues before the court centred on whether the applicants' contentions were sufficient to warrant an amendment to the judgment and whether the applicants' delay in making these submissions was justified.

The court examined the applicants' arguments and found that they did not provide any new evidence or arguments that would change the outcome of the case. The court held that the applicants' contentions were merely an attempt to re-litigate the case based on an alleged misunderstanding of the evidence. The applicants had not demonstrated that the original judgment was made without appreciating the significance of the evidence in question. Furthermore, the applicants' delay in making these submissions was not justified, as they had ample opportunity to raise these issues earlier in the proceedings. The court concluded that the applicants' request to amend the judgment should be rejected.

As a result, the court dismissed the applicants' application to amend the judgment. The original judgment remained in place, and no amendments were made. The applicants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the application. The court emphasised that parties must ensure they present all relevant evidence and arguments in a timely manner to avoid situations where they seek to amend judgments based on perceived oversights.

Orders