Rapid Metal Developments (Aust) Pty Ltd v Rildean Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] NSWSC 1416

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Rapid Metal Developments (Aust) Pty Ltd v Rildean Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] NSWSC 1416

HEARING DATE(S) : 16 December 2009

JUDGMENT DATE : 16 December 2009

JUDGMENT OF : R A Hulme J

DECISION : Defendants' motion dismissed with costs.

CATCHWORDS : PROCEDURE - judgments and orders - amending - varying and setting aside - contention that judgment given without appreciation of significance of certain evidence - contention rejected

LEGISLATION CITED : Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005

CASES CITED : Autodesk Inc v Dyason (No 2) (1993) 176 CLR 300 Rapid Metal Developments (Aust) Pty Ltd v Rildean Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 571

PARTIES : Rapid Metal Developments (Australia) Pty Limited (Plaintiff) Anthony De Vries and Riad Tayeh as joint administrators of Rildean Pty Limited (Defendants)

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 13806/05

COUNSEL : Mr V Gray (Plaintiff) Mr M Ashhurst SC (Defendants)

SOLICITORS : JGP Lawyers (Plaintiff) PMF Legal (Defendants)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

R A Hulme J

16 December 2009

13806/05 Rapid Metal Developments (Aust) Pty Limited v Anthony De Vries & Riad Tayeh as joint administrators of Rildean Pty Limited

JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: I heard this matter over a number of days in March 2009. On 26 June 2009 I delivered judgment on the question of liability in favour of the plaintiff and gave directions as to the resolution of issues of quantum and costs. See Rapid Metal Developments (Aust) Pty Ltd v Rildean Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 571 ("the principal judgment").

2 On 29 June 2009 there was filed on behalf of the defendant a Notice of Motion seeking that the judgment be recalled pursuant to Rule 36.16(3A) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005. Also sought are orders that the plaintiff's amended statement of claim be dismissed and that the plaintiff pay the defendants' costs. The plaintiff resists the motion. 3 It was apparently assumed that the judgment would have been entered by the time the Notice of Motion was filed. UCPR r 36.11(2) provides that unless otherwise ordered, a judgment (or order) is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the court's computerised court record system. This Court has a computerised court record system but a recent inquiry has indicated that although the Court Registry were notified of the judgment, for reasons unknown it was not entered. Accordingly, there is power to set aside or vary the judgment pursuant to UCPR r 36.16(1).