St George v Wallis (No 2) [2001] NSWSC 51

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : St George v Wallis (No 2) [2001] NSWSC 51 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity Division Commercial List FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 50049/93 HEARING DATE(S) : Written Submissions 12/02/01 and 13/02/01 JUDGMENT DATE : 14 February 2001

PARTIES : St George Commercial Credit Corporation Limited - Plaintiff Barry Donald Wallis and Anne Wallis - Defendants JUDGMENT OF : Rolfe J

COUNSEL : Mr C.R.C. Newlinds - Plaintiff Mr P.M. Biscoe QC - Defendants SOLICITORS : Kemp Strang - Plaintiff Bowles and Company - Defendants CATCHWORDS : Application to re-open refused LEGISLATION CITED : Section 94 Supreme Court Act 1970 Part 40 rule 9(1) Supreme Court Rules Autodesk Inc v Dyason (No 2) (1993) 176 CLR 300 CASES CITED : Wentworth v Woollahra Municipal Council (1982) 149 CLR 672 De L v Director-General, New South Wales Department of Community Services (No 2) (1997) 190 CLR 207 DECISION : Application of plaintiff to re-open judgment of 2 February 2001 in relation to the question of interest dismissed and it to pay the defendants' costs of the application.

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION COMMERCIAL LIST

ROLFE J

WEDNESDAY, 14 FEBRUARY 2001 50049/93 - ST GEORGE COMMERCIAL CREDIT CORPORATION LIMITED v WALLIS & ANOR (NO 2)

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction 1 On 29 and 30 January 2001, I heard argument on the issues raised by a Notice of Motion filed on 28 September 2000 on behalf of Mr and Mrs Wallis, for whom Mr P.M. Biscoe of Queen's Counsel appeared, in which they sought judgment against St George Commercial Credit Corporation Limited, ("St George"), for which Mr C.R.C. Newlinds of Counsel appeared, in the sum of $156,099.99; interest thereon pursuant to s.94 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 from 23 August 1993 until judgment; and costs. On 2 February 2001 I published my reasons for judgment and ordered judgment for Mr and Mrs Wallis in the sum of $279,776.06, being the principal sum and interest of $123,676.07 as claimed. In ordering interest, I noted that Mr Newlinds had made no submissions that it should not be awarded, as it was, from the date from which it was sought. I do not propose to repeat what I said in that judgment. I shall assume that the reader of these reasons has access to it. 2 By letter dated 12 February 2001 to my Associate, Mr Newlinds advised that he was instructed to make an application "to re-open the argument of the matter to ask his Honour to reconsider the date from which he has ordered interest to run ..". Mr Newlinds enclosed a copy of his submissions in support of that application and of those he would wish to make should it succeed. The letter continued:- "For my part I would be content for his Honour to deal with the matter without the need for further oral argument." 3 It concluded by stating that a copy of the letter and the submissions had been forwarded to Mr Biscoe. On 13 February 2001, Mr Biscoe furnished his submissions opposing the application to re-open and any variation in the calculation of interest. In paragraph 1 he stated:- "Mr & Mrs Wallis also agree to the Court dealing with the matter without the need for further oral argument." 4 I am satisfied that it is appropriate for me to deal with the matter in the way in which the parties have requested.