Hailey & Anor. v. Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty. Ltd. [2005] NSWCA 302

Hailey & Anor. v. Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty. Ltd. [2005] NSWCA 302

Although it was arguable that consent orders made by a Registrar could be challenged in the review procedure and perhaps after entry of judgment, the claimants showed no basis equivalent to grounds for setting aside a contract because ostensible authority of the solicitor on the record was not challenged. They also failed to show the strong considerations of justice needed for any residual power to set aside an entered judgment, did not substantively establish a defence on the merits, delayed for a long time, and had participated in part payment with knowledge of the settlement. The prospects of success on appeal were negligible, so leave was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From Supreme Court Equity Division, Master Mc Laughlin
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['consent Orders' 'entry of Judgment' 'setting Aside Judgment' "review of Registrar's Decision" 'solicitor Authority to Settle' 'leave to Appeal']
['procedure' 'civil Procedure'] ['consent Orders' 'entry of Judgment' 'setting Aside Judgment' "review of Registrar's Decision" 'solicitor Authority to Settle' 'leave to Appeal']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From Supreme Court Equity Division, Master Mc Laughlin

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether consent orders made by a Registrar can be challenged in the review procedure.' 'Whether consent orders can be challenged after entry of judgment.' 'Whether lack of actual authority in a solicitor to agree to settlement is sufficient to set aside entered consent judgment where ostensible authority is not challenged.' 'Whether strong considerations of justice justified setting aside the entered judgment.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although it was arguable that consent orders made by a Registrar could be challenged in the review procedure and perhaps after entry of judgment, the claimants showed no basis equivalent to grounds for setting aside a contract because ostensible authority of the solicitor on the record was not challenged. They also failed to show the strong considerations of justice needed for any residual power to set aside an entered judgment, did not substantively establish a defence on the merits, delayed for a long time, and had participated in part payment with knowledge of the settlement. The prospects of success on appeal were negligible, so leave was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.']