New South Wales Court of Appeal CITATION: Heperu Pty Limited v Belle (No 3) [2010] NSWCA 339 HEARING DATE(S): On the papers JUDGMENT DATE: 9 December 2010 JUDGMENT OF: Allsop P at 1; Campbell JA at 4; Handley AJA at 5 DECISION: The respondent pay 25% of the appellants' costs of the appeal. [Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.] CATEGORY: Procedural and other rulings Heperu Pty Limited (First Appellant) PARTIES: Kirisi Holdings Pty Limited (Second Appellant) Patrice Belle (formerly Patrice Cincotta) (Respondent) FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40107/08 COUNSEL: G K Burton SC, C L Cochrane (Appellants) J S Van Aalst (Respondent) SOLICITORS: Thomas Henry Bray, Sydney (Appellants) Hardings Lawyers, Sydney (Respondent) LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court - Equity Division LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 6165/03 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Palmer J LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 12 December 2007 LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: Heperu Pty Ltd & Ors v Morgan Brooks Pty Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2007] NSWSC 1438 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL 40107/08 ALLSOP P CAMPBELL JA HANDLEY AJA Thursday 9 December 2010 HEPERU PTY LTD v BELLE (No 3) Judgment 1 ALLSOP P: On 12 February 2010 orders were made disposing of the appeal other than costs: Heperu Pty Ltd v Belle (No 2) [2010] NSWCA 13. 2 As to costs I said in [11] of my judgment the following: "The appellants have had a measure of success, but they lost almost all grounds of appeal. Subject to the parties leaving an opportunity to put submissions on costs, I would order that the respondent pay 25% of the appellants' costs of the appeal." 3 The Court provided the parties with fourteen days to file written submissions. Neither side desired to make submissions contrary to the proposed order. Unfortunately, the making of the order (which strictly is not by consent) was overlooked by me. In the circumstances the order of the Court should be that the respondent pay 25% of the appellants' costs of the appeal. 4 CAMPBELL JA: I agree with Allsop P. 5 HANDLEY AJA: I agree with Allsop P. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.