Mills v Futhem Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 252

Mills v Futhem Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 252

No judgment or order was entered because the terms of settlement were not recorded in the District Court's computerised court record system as required by UCPR r 36.11. The 29 April 2010 document could not be a copy of an entered judgment or order and did not accurately set out the terms of settlement. Under Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 133, there was therefore no enforceable order, so the respondent was restrained from enforcement and the matter was remitted to the District Court to determine the proper form of orders consequent on the compromise.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal From District Court Civil Proceedings / Court of Appeal Determination of Application for Leave to Appeal Heard Concurrently With the Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; District Court orders set aside; respondent restrained from enforcement; matter remitted to the District Court; costs ordered in favour of the appellant.
Legal Topics
['entry of Judgments and Orders in Computerised Court Record System' 'consent Orders' 'enforcement of Unentered Judgments or Orders' 'construction of Terms of Settlement' 'remitter to District Court']
['civil Procedure' 'judgments and Orders' 'settlement and Compromise'] ['entry of Judgments and Orders in Computerised Court Record System' 'consent Orders' 'enforcement of Unentered Judgments or Orders' 'construction of Terms of Settlement' 'remitter to District Court']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal From District Court Civil Proceedings / Court of Appeal Determination of Application for Leave to Appeal Heard Concurrently With the Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether any judgment or order was entered in the District Court on 16 December 2008 for the purposes of Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 36.11.' 'Whether the document dated 29 April 2010 was a sealed copy of an entered judgment or order under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 36.12.' 'Whether Futhem Pty Ltd could enforce the terms of settlement or purported orders when no judgment or order had been entered.' 'Whether the dispute about the meaning and effect of the terms of settlement should be resolved by the District Court.']

Ratio Decidendi

No judgment or order was entered because the terms of settlement were not recorded in the District Court's computerised court record system as required by UCPR r 36.11. The 29 April 2010 document could not be a copy of an entered judgment or order and did not accurately set out the terms of settlement. Under Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 133, there was therefore no enforceable order, so the respondent was restrained from enforcement and the matter was remitted to the District Court to determine the proper form of orders consequent on the compromise.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; District Court orders set aside; respondent restrained from enforcement; matter remitted to the District Court; costs ordered in favour of the appellant.

Orders

  • ['Application for leave to appeal granted.' 'Notice of appeal to be filed within 14 days.' 'Appeal allowed.' "Orders of the District Court made on 26 May 2011 be set aside and in lieu thereof restrain the plaintiff from seeking to enforce the terms of settlement dated 16 December 2008 or the purported orders of the...