Treswhite v Cavallo

[2005] NSWSC 146

CITATION:	Treswhite v Cavallo [2005] NSWSC 146
HEARING DATE(S):	07/02/05, 08/02/05
JUDGMENT DATE :	4 March 2005
JUDGMENT OF:	Gzell J
DECISION:	Judgment not entered. Consent orders made in terms of parties' compromise

CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE - Supreme Court Procedure - Whether a settlement after trial but before judgment should be accepted or judgment entered - Reasons for judgment already prepared - No issue of principle of general importance in reasons
LEGISLATION CITED:	Supreme Court Rules 1970 Supreme Court Act 1970 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)
CASES CITED:	Voss v Suncorp-Metway No. 1 (2004) 1 Qd R 212
PARTIES:	Treswhite Pty Ltd - Plaintiff Cavallo Enterprises Pty Ltd - Defendant
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 2224/03
COUNSEL:	Mr G Rundle Plaintiff Ms A Stenmark SC - Defendant
SOLICITORS:	F L Agostini Solicitor PME Robinson & Co Lawyers

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

GZELL J

FRIDAY 4 MARCH 2005

2224/03 TRESWHITE PTY LTD v CAVALLO ENTERPRISES PTY LTD

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

1 I had completed my reasons for judgment in this matter on Thursday 17 February 2005 when I was requested not to publish them. I said I would delay by a week. On Wednesday 23 February 2005, I was requested to stand the matter over again and I did so until Monday 28 February 2005. On that day a further request was made and I stood the matter over to today. There is a limit to the extent to which the court should hold its hand before publishing its reasons.

2 The parties need the consent of the court to allow a discontinuance or a withdrawal (Supreme Court Rules 1970, Pt 21 r 1 and r 2) or to make orders on a compromise (Supreme Court Act 1970, s 91(1)).

3 In the exercise of such discretions, courts have refused to accept compromises and have delivered judgment instead. In Voss v Suncorp-Metway No. 1 (2004) 1 Qd R 212 the parties had settled an appeal but the court refused to accept the settlement. The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 762 provided that the parties might agree an appeal should be dismissed by consent. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal held that it had a discretion not to make an order in terms of the memorandum filed by the parties. It concluded that there were errors in the judgment below of general importance that needed to be corrected.

4 In this case, my judgment does not involve issues of principle of general importance. I am prepared, therefore, to accept the parties' compromise.

5 I make orders in terms of the short minutes of orders initialled by me, dated by me and placed with the papers.

***********