Blashki v Utara [2003] NSWSC 210

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Blashki v Utara [2003] NSWSC 210 HEARING DATE(S) : 25 March 2003 JUDGMENT DATE : 25 March 2003 JURISDICTION: Equity JUDGMENT OF : Hamilton J DECISION : On making of orders proceedings adjourned for further consideration but questions of quantification and payment also specifically reserved.

CATCHWORDS : PROCEDURE [110] - Supreme Court Procedure - Practice under Supreme Court Rules - Trial - Further consideration - Ambit. Blashki v Utara [2002] NSWSC 1201 CASES CITED : Kara Kar Holdings Pty Ltd v Brookton Holdings NSWCA 27 March 1997 unreported Meehan v Glazier Holdings Pty Ltd [2002] NSWCA 22 Daniell's Chancery Practice (5th ed, 1871), (7th ed, 1901) PARTIES : Phillip Sydney Blashki (P) Ida Bagus Utara (D) FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 4686/99 COUNSEL : S J Burchett (P) G A Sirtes (D) SOLICITORS : Andrews (P) Burn & Company (D)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION

HAMILTON J

TUESDAY, 25 MARCH 2003

4686/99 PHILLIP SYDNEY BLASHKI v IDA BAGUS UTARA JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: There has been further debate before me this morning as to the form of the orders which should be made in these proceedings consequent upon my substantive judgment: Blashki v Utara [2002] NSWSC 1201 ("my judgment"). I had circulated to counsel a minute of the orders I was prepared to make. Orders 1, 2 and 3 in that minute corresponded with the orders which I shall now proceed to make. No objection was taken to the making of those orders. Order 4 in the minute was in the form, "Otherwise judgment for the defendant on the plaintiff's claims." The defendant agreed to the making of the orders in the form I proposed, but a number of objections to them were advanced by Mr Burchett, of counsel for the plaintiff. 2 The first was that order 4 as proposed is dangerously wide and may subsequently be argued to preclude further orders in favour of the plaintiff consequential on order 3. I had proposed to protect the plaintiff by adjourning the proceedings for further consideration. But Mr Burchett argued by reference to what appears at the foot of 1230 in Daniell's Chancery Practice (5th ed, 1871) (repeated in 7th ed, 1901 at 949) that the scope of further consideration is very narrow and that that increases the danger he perceives. The passage in Daniell is as follows: "The Court will not take any matters into consideration at the further hearing, which were in issue at the first hearing, but were not then decided, put into a train of investigation, or reserved, such matters being considered as abandoned, or in such a state as not to entitle the plaintiff to any order on them."