Generate Group Pty Limited v Sea Tech Automation Pty Limited [2007] NSWSC 255

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Generate Group Pty Limited v Sea Tech Automation Pty Limited [2007] NSWSC 255

HEARING DATE(S) : 20/3/07 JURISDICTION : Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF : Einstein J

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 20 March 2007

DECISION : Motion dismissed

CATCHWORDS : Practice and procedure - Application to recall reasons for interlocutory judgment - Principles

Autodesk Inc v Dyason (No 2) (1993) 176 CLR 300 CASES CITED : Dickens, In re; Dickens v Hawksley [1935] Ch 267 Twenty-First Australia Inc v Shade (unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wales, Young J, 31 July 1998, BC9803667)

PARTIES : Generate Group Pty Limited (Plaintiff) Sea Tech Automation Pty Limited (Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 1687/07

COUNSEL : Mr T Brennan (Plaintiff) Ms C Cochrane (Defendant)

SOLICITORS : SBA Lawyers (Plaintiff) Diamond Conway Lawyers (Defendant)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION

Einstein J

Tuesday 20 March 2007 ex tempore Revised 21 March 2007

1687/07 Generate Group Pty Limited v Sea-Tech Automation Pty Limited JUDGMENT The state of these proceedings 1 The interlocutory hearing of these proceedings took place on 12 March 2007. Judgment was reserved and was delivered on 15 March 2007. 2 There is before the Court a notice of motion under cover of which the defendant seeks orders "that the Court's reasons for judgment delivered on 15 March 2007 be recalled and that the Court give different reasons for judgment that omit paragraph 71". The principles 3 Neither party has taken issue with the principles which obtain in relation to an application of the present type. Those principles found expression in Autodesk Inc v Dyason (No 2) (1993) 176 CLR 300 at 302-303 where Mason CJ identified various circumstances in which, under the authorities, the Court has exercised the jurisdiction to reopen a judgment which had apparently miscarried. The guiding principle as stated by Mason CJ at 302 is as follows: