NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Court of Appeal
CITATION: Sydney City Council v Geftlick & Ors (No 2) [2006] NSWCA 374 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
HEARING DATE(S): On the papers
JUDGMENT DATE: 20 December 2006
JUDGMENT OF: Mason P; Hodgson JA; Tobias JA
DECISION: Order (j) made by the Court on 18 October 2006 is to remain undisturbed and the plaintiff's notice of motion filed on 25 October 2006 is dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS: COSTS – consequential orders – exercise of discretion by primary judge – reopening of argument – principles
LEGISLATION CITED: Suitor's Fund Act 1951 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, Part 36 Rule 16
Autodesk Inc v Dyason [No.2] (1993) 176 CLR 300 DeL v Director-General, NSW Department of Community Services [No 2] (1997) 190 CLR 207 CASES CITED: Morgan v Johnson (1998) 44 NSWLR 578 Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd v Irving [2005] NSWCA 1 Wentworth v Woollahra Municipal Council (1982) 149 CLR 672
Sydney City Council PARTIES: Layla Geftlick Ronali Pty Ltd t/as Tim Green Commercial\ Edremo Holdings Pty Ltd
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 040866/05
Cl: G Laughton SC / G J Parker COUNSEL: Opp1: S C Campbell SC / G Walsh Opp2: S A Kerr / S E Gray Opp3: J E Sexton SC
Cl: McCulloch & Buggy, Sydney SOLICITORS: Opp1: CMC Lawyers, Sydney Opp2: Wotton & Kearney, Sydney Opp3: Thompson Cooper Lawyers Pty Ltd
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL CA 40866/05 DC 4587/03
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate