Jaycar Pty Limited v Lombardo [2011] NSWCA 284

Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Jaycar Pty Limited v Lombardo [2011] NSWCA 284 Hearing dates: 26 August 2011 Decision date: 14 September 2011 Before: Campbell JA at [1] Young JA at [71] Meagher JA at [72] Decision: 1. Dismiss the summons seeking leave to appeal filed by Jaycar Pty Limited and Electus Distribution Pty Limited dated 4 March 2011, with costs. 2. Grant leave to appeal to Ross Lombardo concerning the judgment delivered in the court below on 24 June 2011. 3. Deem the draft Notice of Appeal contained in the White Book concerning that application to be filed. 4. Set aside the orders made in the court below on 24 June 2011. 5. In lieu thereof: (i) Set aside order (ii) made by the court below on 25 May 2011 (in the reasons for judgment comprising 14 paragraphs delivered that day) and order (iii) made by the court below on 25 May 2011 (in the reasons for judgment comprising 75 paragraphs delivered that day); and (ii) In lieu thereof order that the defendants pay the costs of the Plaintiff of the Notice of Motion to vary the judgment delivered on 8 December 2010. 6. Order Jaycar Pty Limited and Electus Distribution Pty Limited to pay the costs of Ross Lombardo of the application for leave to appeal referred to in Order 2 hereof, and of the resulting 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.] Catchwords: APPEAL - costs - right of appeal - jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal - Supreme Court Act 1970 s 101(2)(r) - whether leave to appeal required - where small sum involved, no question of principle and no issue of general public importance - whether reasonably clear that the judge's conclusion about liability was wrong -