Westpac Banking Corporation v Wittenberg (No 2)

Case [2016] FCAFC 49


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Westpac Banking Corporation v Wittenberg (No 2) [2016] FCAFC 49

Appeal from:

Murphy v Westpac Banking Corporation [2014] FCA 1104

Murphy v Westpac Banking Corporation (No 2) [2015] FCA 266

File number(s): NSD 405 of 2015
Judge(s): BUCHANAN, MCKERRACHER AND WHITE JJ
Date of judgment: 30 March 2016
Catchwords: APPEAL – slip rule – inadvertent error made in orders on appeal – orders varied
Cases cited: Westpac Banking Corporation v Wittenberg [2016] FCAFC 33
Registry: New South Wales
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Regulator and Consumer Protection
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 3

ORDERS

NSD 405 of 2015
BETWEEN:

WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION ACN 007 457 141

Appellant

AND:

COREY WITTENBERG

Respondent

AND BETWEEN:

COREY WITTENBERG

Cross-Appellant

AND:

WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION ACN 007 457 141

Cross-Respondent

JUDGES:

BUCHANAN, MCKERRACHER AND WHITE JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

30 MARCH 2016

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The orders made by the Full Court on 14 March 2016 with respect to NSD 405 of 2015 Westpac appeal re Wittenberg / Wittenberg cross-appeal be set aside and in lieu thereof it be ordered, with effect from 14 March 2016, as follows:

1.The appeal be allowed.

2.The orders made in proceedings NSD 90 of 2010 on 27 March 2015 be set aside and in lieu thereof it be ordered that:

(a)Judgment for the applicant in the amount of $50,000 plus interest from 14 November 2008 to 2 April 2012 in the amount of $14,350.41.

(b)Judgment for the applicant be ordered in the sum of $60,000 plus interest on that amount from 27 February 2009 to 27 March 2015 at the rates prescribed by section 51A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).

(c)The respondent pay 25% of the applicant’s costs of the proceedings in NSD 90 of 2010, as taxed if not agreed.

3.The respondent to the appeal pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal, as taxed if not agreed.

4.The cross-appeal be dismissed with costs, as taxed if not agreed.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


SUPPLEMENTARY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

  1. Since judgment was delivered in this matter (Westpac Banking Corporation v Wittenberg [2016] FCAFC 33), a clerical error has been discovered which requires correction.

  2. In the case of each employee an order was made in the proceedings at first instance reflecting the concession by Westpac Banking Corporation (“Westpac”) that the retention incentive payment should be made, together with interest on that amount to 2 April 2012.  Some of those orders were made by Jagot J on 2 April 2012, and the others were made by the primary judge on 27 March 2015.  No party sought that those orders be disturbed on the appeal.

  3. Inadvertently, the orders made on the appeal in NSD 405 of 2015 (Westpac appeal re Wittenberg) set aside an earlier order to that effect.  That should be corrected by making the order which accompanies this judgment.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justices Buchanan, McKerracher and White.

Associate:

Dated:       30 March 2016

Details
AGLC
Westpac Banking Corporation v Wittenberg (No 2) [2016] FCAFC 49
Case
[2016] FCAFC 49
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court involved Westpac Banking Corporation and Wittenberg. The dispute originated from an earlier judgment that had been appealed to the Federal Court, resulting in orders being made against Wittenberg. However, an inadvertent error was subsequently identified in the orders, prompting Westpac to seek variation of those orders. The matter was heard by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether it had the jurisdiction to vary the orders due to an inadvertent error, and if so, whether it should exercise that jurisdiction in this instance. The court considered the principles surrounding the correction of errors in judicial orders, particularly in the context of the 'slip rule', which allows for the correction of errors that are apparent on the face of the record. The court also assessed the impact of the error on the parties and the potential for prejudice if the orders were not varied.

The court found that it did indeed have the jurisdiction to vary the orders due to the inadvertent error, in accordance with the principles of the slip rule. The error was deemed apparent on the face of the record and did not require further evidence to be presented. The court concluded that varying the orders was necessary to ensure justice was served and to avoid potential prejudice to Wittenberg. Consequently, the court varied the orders as requested by Westpac.

The final orders of the court involved the variation of the original orders made against Wittenberg. The specific changes to the orders were not detailed in the summary but were noted to be necessary to correct the inadvertent error. This decision underscores the importance of accuracy in judicial orders and the court's willingness to correct errors where they are apparent on the face of the record.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.