PRELEA v WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION; WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION v PRELEA [1992] NSWCA 189

PRELEA v WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION; WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION v PRELEA

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

KIRBY P, SHELLER and Cripps JJA 29-30 June 1992, 3 July 1992 [1992] NSWCA 189

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — slip in judgment — slip corrected — all proceedings in relation to Contracts Review Act returned for trial in Commercial Division. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Court of Appeal — appeal from interlocutory or final order granting leave to enter judgment — Held: Such an order is interlocutory — requires leave. Cox Bros (Aust) Ltd and Anor v Cox (1934) 50 CLR 314 applied.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE ~— slip in orders — commercial proceedings — judge of Commercial Division (Cole J) strikes out defence of husband based on Contracts Review Act 1980 — orders defence of wife under that Act to be tried separately — overlooks like defence of husband — grants leave to enter judgment against husband — bank enters judgment against husband — acknowledges slip by judge — invites consensual correction — proper procedure for correction — held: Orders made setting judgment aside and remitting all defences and cross-claims based on Contracts Review Act to Commercial Division for trial.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Court of Appeal — interlocutory or final order — leave to enter judgment — whether interlocutory or final — held: Such orders are interlocutory and require leave to appeal. Cox Bros (Australia) Pty Ltd and Anor v Cox (1934) 50 CLR 314; Coles vy Wood and Anor [1981] 1 NSWLR 736 (CA) applied — purported appeal as of right struck out.

Contracts Review Act 1980 Supreme Court Act 1970, s101(2)(e). ORDERS

The parties within seven days to bring in short minutes of orders to give effect to the reasons of the Court.

Kirby P, Sheller and Cripps JJA Before the Court is an appeal and cross-appeal. Each concerns orders made by Cole J in the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court on 6 April 1992. To a large extent, it was common cause of the parties that a slip had occurred in his Honour's orders which it would be convenient for this Court to correct. However, because the notice of appeal as filed covers a wider range of matters than the cross-appeal and because the parties were in dispute as to the proper order for costs, it is necessary to explain the orders which this Court makes.