Nutectime International Pty Ltd v Timentel Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 16

Nutectime International Pty Ltd v Timentel Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 16

There was no evidence or basis to infer that the inclusion of Mr Ehsman in the appeal costs order resulted from an accidental slip or omission or from a failure to reflect the Court's intention. Mr Ehsman was an active and unsuccessful party, and the order for costs against him was warranted. The application to vary the order long after it was made amounts to an attempt to reopen matters that could have been argued at the original hearing, which is not permissible. Alleged impropriety by the appellants after the order was made did not justify setting aside or varying the costs order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion (application to Vary Costs Order) in Appeal Proceedings / Post Judgment Application for Variation of Costs Order
Outcome
Notice of Motion dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
['correction of Judgments' 'costs Orders' 'slip Rule' 'inherent Jurisdiction' 'setting Aside Orders']
['civil Procedure'] ['correction of Judgments' 'costs Orders' 'slip Rule' 'inherent Jurisdiction' 'setting Aside Orders']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion (application to Vary Costs Order) in Appeal Proceedings / Post Judgment Application for Variation of Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the costs order made on 5 September 2011 should be varied under the slip rule or inherent jurisdiction to exclude Mr Ehsman from liability for costs' 'Whether the inclusion of Mr Ehsman in the costs order was an accidental slip or omission' 'Whether alleged impropriety by appellants after the costs order affects enforcement against Mr Ehsman']

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence or basis to infer that the inclusion of Mr Ehsman in the appeal costs order resulted from an accidental slip or omission or from a failure to reflect the Court's intention. Mr Ehsman was an active and unsuccessful party, and the order for costs against him was warranted. The application to vary the order long after it was made amounts to an attempt to reopen matters that could have been argued at the original hearing, which is not permissible. Alleged impropriety by the appellants after the order was made did not justify setting aside or varying the costs order.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion dismissed with costs

Orders

  • ['The Notice of Motion is dismissed with costs.']