NSW Caselaw
Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Nutectime International Pty Ltd v Timentel Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 16 Hearing dates: 19 December 2013 Decision date: 14 February 2014 Before: Macfarlan JA at [1]; Meagher JA at [21]; Gleeson JA at [22] Decision: The Notice of Motion is dismissed with costs. [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: PROCEDURE - judgments and orders -correction under slip rule - Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r 36.17 - inherent power to amend to give effect to meaning and intention of court - whether respondent an active party to the appeal Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 56 Suitors' Fund Act 1951(NSW) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 36.16, 36.17, 42.1 Cases Cited: Aktas v Westpac Banking Corporation Ltd (No 2) [2010] HCA 47; 241 CLR 570 Autodesk Inc v Dyason (No 2) [1993] HCA 6; 176 CLR 300 Bird v Bird (No 2) [2013] NSWCA 380 D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid [2005] HCA 12; 223 CLR 1 Ehsman v Nutectime International Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] NSWSC 1096 Flint v Richard Busuttil & Co Pty Ltd [2013] FCAFC 131 L Shaddock & Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council (No 2) [1982] HCA 59; 151 CLR 590 Newmont Yandal Operations Pty Ltd v J Aron Corporation [2007] NSWCA 195; 70 NSWLR 411 Nutectime International Pty Ltd v Timentel Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 257 Nutectime International Pty Ltd v Timentel Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 254 Storey & Keers Pty Ltd v Johnstone (1987) 9 NSWLR 446 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Nutectime International Pty Ltd (First Appellant) David Neilan Brady (Second Appellant) David Bruce Paix (Third Appellant) Timentel Pty Ltd (First Respondent) Patricia Mary Ehsman (Second Respondent) Michael David Ehsman (Third Respondent) Francis Joseph Frasca (Fourth Respondent) Representation: Counsel: F C Corsaro SC/B C A Bradley (Appellants) S A Benson (Third Respondent) Solicitors: Mason Lawyers (Appellants) John Hollier (Third Respondent) File Number(s): CA 2005/261666
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