Suttram Pty Limited v Michelin Australia Pty Limited [2009] NSWDC 408

New South Wales District Court

CITATION: Suttram Pty Limited v Michelin Australia Pty Limited [2009] NSWDC 408

JUDGMENT DATE: 8 October 2009

JURISDICTION: District Court of New South Wales

JUDGMENT OF: Cogswell SC DCJ

DECISION: The application is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: CIVIL LAW - reasons for judgment delivered but judgment not entered - Notice of Motion put on by defendant seeking leave to reopen its case and adduce further evidence - power of District Court to deal with application - considerations relevant to application

LEGISLATION CITED: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 29.6 Civil Procedure Act 2005

Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University (2009) 83 ALJR 951 ASIC v Rich [2006] NSWSC 826 CASES CITED: DJL v The Central Authority (2000) 201 CLR 226 Kettemen v Hansel Properties Limited [1987] AC 189 Urban Trans Port Authority (NSW) v Nweiser (1992) 28 NSWLR 471

TEXTS CITED: Ritchie's Uniform Civil Procedure

PARTIES: Suttram Pty Limited Michelin Australia Pty Limited

FILE NUMBER(S): 4530/06

Mr Sharpe (for Suttram) COUNSEL: Mr Parker S.C. (for Michelin Australia Pty Limited) Mr Vincent (for Michelin Australia Pty Limited)

JUDGMENT

1. Suttram Pty Limited sued Michelin Australia Pty Limited for damages for manufacturing a defective tyre which failed. Michelin denied that it was the manufacturer. Proceedings occupied about three weeks and canvassed many issues apart from that. After the evidence and submissions I reserved my decision.

2. I delivered my reasons for judgment on 21 May 2009 and found that Michelin was the manufacturer of the defective tyre. I did not enter a verdict or judgment for Suttram because Michelin needed to check a point which would affect the amount I would enter a judgment for. Suttram agreed to an adjournment for that purpose.