Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Calandra v Murden (No 2) [2015] NSWCA 321 Hearing dates: On the papers Decision date: 20 October 2015 Before: Beazley P; Meagher JA; Leeming JA Decision: Application dismissed. Catchwords: COSTS – application for certificate under Suitors' Fund Act – application refused Legislation Cited: Suitors' Fund Act 1951 (NSW) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 36.15 Cases Cited: Calandra v Murden [2015] NSWCA 231 Frost v Kourouche [2014] NSWCA 39; 86 NSWLR 214 John Murden v Emilio Calandra [2015] NSWSC 424 Category: Consequential orders (other than Costs) Parties: John Murden (Applicant on motion) Representation: Counsel: PR Glissan (Applicant on motion) Solicitors: TD Kelly & Co (Applicant on motion) File Number(s): 2015/135803 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: Supreme Court of New South Wales Jurisdiction: Common Law Citation: [2015] NSWSC 424 Date of Decision: 17 April 2015 Before: RS Hulme AJ File Number(s): 2013/320857 [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.] Judgment 1. THE COURT: By notice of motion filed 26 August 2015, Mr Murden has applied for a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 (NSW) in respect of costs ordered against him by this Court: Calandra v Murden [2015] NSWCA 231. In order to explain why the motion should be dismissed, it is necessary to say something concerning the background of that appeal. 2. Mr Murden had caused to be filed in the Local Court a form headed "Filing of Certificate of Order" to which was attached two costs assessor's certificates. That led to a judgment being entered in the Local Court against Mr and Mrs Calandra in the amount of $16,752.50. Mr Murden took those steps notwithstanding that he and Mr Calandra had entered into a deed of release and indemnity almost a year earlier. It was not in contest in this Court, or before the primary judge, that the subject matter of that release included the costs which were the subject of the costs certificates. Further, the consequence of the release of Mr Calandra was, as a matter of law, the release of Mrs Calandra (who was a joint obligor). 3. A Local Court Magistrate, following a hearing on the application of Mr and Mrs Calandra, set aside the judgment which Mr Murden had obtained. Mr Murden appealed on a question of law. At the hearing before the primary judge in the Supreme Court, the only question raised was whether the Magistrate had jurisdiction to set aside the judgment. The primary judge accepted that submission and allowed the appeal: John Murden v Emilio Calandra [2015] NSWSC 424. 4. This Court found that that conclusion was wrong, and that the judgment procured by Mr Murden was, in the language of UCPR r 36.15, entered "against good faith" and also entered "irregularly", because there was no amount of unpaid costs in respect of which Mr Murden was entitled to judgment: at [20]. This Court said that "the form should not have been filed and ought not to have been accepted, had [Mr Murden] disclosed at the time of its filing that there was no amount of unpaid costs due": at [21]. 5. In general terms, the Suitors' Fund Act provides a measure of compensation to the respondent to an appeal when an appeal is allowed through no fault of the respondent: Frost v Kourouche [2014] NSWCA 39; 86 NSWLR 214 at [48]. In the present case, Mr Murden procured a judgment to which he was not entitled, and further, persuaded the primary judge that there was no power in the Local Court to correct its record by setting aside the judgment which had been wrongly entered. 6. Mr Murden's written submissions in support of his application for a certificate make no attempt to grapple with those matters, which were central to the appeal. Instead, Mr Murden's submissions assert that there was no reason why this Court's discretion should not, as a matter of course, be exercised so as to grant a certificate to him. To the contrary, the whole of this litigation, including a hearing before a Magistrate, an appeal to the primary judge, and a further appeal to this Court, has been brought about by Mr Murden first applying for a judgment to which he was not entitled, and then persuading the primary judge to adopt an erroneous submission. This is a stronger case than Frost v Kourouche for declining to grant a certificate. 7. The notice of motion filed 26 August 2015 must be dismissed. ********** Amendments 20 October 2015 - Typographical errors in [4] and [7] corrected. 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. Decision last updated: 20 October 2015