Wang v Farkas (No 4)

In *Wang v Farkas (No 4)*, the applicants sought to vary orders made by the court. The dispute arose from disbursements incurred by the first respondent, Mr Farkas, in enforcing earlier court orders, particularly after the applicants commenced judicial review proceedings. A stay of those earlier orders had been granted, conditional on the applicants providing a bank guarantee for costs. The applicants were ultimately successful in their judicial review proceedings.

The court was required to determine whether an allowance for disbursements incurred by the respondent in enforcing the orders should extend to those incurred after the commencement of the judicial review proceedings. Additionally, the court considered the application of the "slip rule" under rule 36.17 of the *Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005* (NSW), and the scope and nature of this discretionary power, particularly where the proposed variation might substantially alter the parties' rights. The court also had to consider its power to waive formal notice requirements for such applications under section 14 of the *Civil Procedure Act 2005* (NSW).

The court reasoned that an allowance for disbursements incurred by the respondent in seeking to enforce the District Court orders was appropriate, even for those incurred after the judicial review proceedings commenced. This was in light of the prejudice caused to the respondent by the delay occasioned by the applicants' actions. The court also considered the application of the slip rule, noting that while it allows for the correction of clerical mistakes or errors arising from an accidental slip or omission, it is not intended to permit substantial alterations to the rights of the parties. The court ultimately made orders allowing the applicants to pay the disbursements, including solicitors' fees, incurred by Mr Farkas in seeking to enforce the District Court orders up to 9 September 2013, as well as the costs of cancellation of registrations of the Writ on properties, consequent upon the lodging of the bank guarantee. The applicants were also ordered to pay Mr Farkas' costs of the application, limited to the filing fee.