UAERJ Pty Ltd v Jupiters Ltd (No 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 4 min read

Court of Appeal

New South Wales

Case Title: UAERJ Pty Ltd v Jupiters Ltd (No 2)
Medium Neutral Citation: [2014] NSWCA 284
Hearing Date(s): On the papers
Decision Date: 25 August 2014
Before: Beazley P
McColl JA
Macfarlan JA
Decision:

(1) Order 3(a) made by this Court on 3 July 2014 is set aside.

(2) Order UAERJ to pay the State of New South Wales' and Jupiters' costs of the State's Notice of Motion filed on 17 July 2014.

(3) Dismiss UAERJ's Notice of Motion filed on 29 July 2014, with costs.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - order amended under slip rule - no issue of principle
Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 36.16(3A), 36.17
Category: Consequential orders
Parties: UAERJ Pty Ltd (Appellant/First
Cross-Respondent)
Ruchitha Perera (Second Appellant/Second Cross-Respondent)
Jupiters Ltd (Respondent/Cross-Appellant)
UAE Presents Pty Ltd (Third
Cross-Respondent)
John Denison (Fourth Cross-Respondent)
Brisbane City Council (Fifth
Cross-Respondent)
State of New South Wales (Sixth
Cross-Respondent)
AEG Ogden (Perth Arena) Pty Ltd (Seventh Cross-Respondent)
Representation
- Counsel: Counsel:
T J Morahan (Appellants/First and Second Cross-Respondents)
K Dawson/J Curtin (Respondent/
Cross-Appellant)
Submitting Appearance (Sixth
Cross-Respondent)
- Solicitors: Solicitors:
Emprise Legal (Appellants/First and Second Cross-Respondents)
King & Wood Mallesons (Respondent/Cross-Appellant)
UAE Presents Pty Ltd (Third
Cross-Respondent)
John Denison (Fourth Cross-Respondent)
Brisbane City Legal Practice (Fifth
Cross-Respondent)
NSW Crown Solicitor's Office (Sixth
Cross-Respondent)
Clayton Utz (Seventh Cross-Respondent)
File Number(s): CA 2013/349095
Decision Under Appeal
- Court / Tribunal: Supreme Court
- Before: Stevenson J
- Date of Decision:  04 October 2013
- Citation: Jupiters Ltd v UAERJ Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 1469
- Court File Number(s): SC 2013/164924

JUDGMENT

  1. THE COURT: The Court delivered judgment on this appeal on 3 July 2014 ([2014] NSWCA 213). The appeal involved a contest between UAERJ and Jupiters as to which was entitled to concert ticket sale proceeds held by the owners of venues in Perth, Brisbane and Wollongong. The State of New South Wales owns the Wollongong venue. The Court reversed the primary judge's finding in Jupiters' favour in relation to the Perth concert and confirmed his Honour's findings against Jupiters in relation to the Wollongong and Brisbane concerts.

  2. Separate from the proceedings between UAERJ and Jupiters were first instance interpleader proceedings commenced by the State (2013/131366). In those proceedings, the Equity Division ordered on 23 October 2013 (by order (1) made on that date) that the State's costs be paid on an indemnity basis from the funds held by it. There was no appeal from the orders made in those proceedings and the State was not named as a party to UAERJ's appeal…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read UAERJ Pty Ltd v Jupiters Ltd (No 2) 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
[2014] NSWCA 284
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales, UAERJ Pty Ltd sought to have an order made by the Court on 3 July 2014 amended. The respondents were Jupiters Ltd and the State of New South Wales. The dispute concerned the application of the slip rule to correct an alleged error in the original order.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the original order of 3 July 2014 contained a "slip" or manifest error that warranted amendment under the slip rule. This involved determining if the order, as recorded, did not accurately reflect the Court's true intention or if it contained a clerical mistake or an error arising from an accidental omission.

The Court found that the original order did not contain a slip that could be corrected under the slip rule. The Court's reasoning, as indicated by the orders made, was that the application to amend the order was not justified. Consequently, the Court set aside the specific order of 3 July 2014 that UAERJ sought to amend, and ordered UAERJ to pay the costs of the State of New South Wales and Jupiters in relation to the State's notice of motion. UAERJ's own subsequent notice of motion was dismissed, also with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Order 3(a) made by this Court on 3 July 2014 is set aside.

(2) Order UAERJ to pay the State of New South Wales' and Jupiters' costs of the State's Notice of Motion filed on 17 July 2014.

(3) Dismiss UAERJ's Notice of Motion filed on 29 July 2014, with costs.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

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.