Lahoud v Lahoud [2012] NSWCA 401

Lahoud v Lahoud [2012] NSWCA 401

The court held that the reservation of further consideration in the March 2006 orders did not authorise retrospective removal or reduction of entitlement to interest already accrued under those orders. Variation could only affect the accruing of interest for future periods and not affect the quantum of accrued entitlement. No error was found in the factual evaluations regarding delays attributable to the respondents; thus, relief could not be granted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal – Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['judgments and Orders' 'interest on Costs' 'variation of Orders' 'delay in Assessment']

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

Appeal / Court of Appeal – Hearing and Judgment

  1. 1 ['Whether a subsequent order may vary existing regime by removing entitlement to interest already accrued' 'Whether relief from payment of interest on costs should be granted due to delay' 'Construction and effect of reservation of further consideration and liberty to apply' 'Correct evaluation of factual findings relating to alleged delay']

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the reservation of further consideration in the March 2006 orders did not authorise retrospective removal or reduction of entitlement to interest already accrued under those orders. Variation could only affect the accruing of interest for future periods and not affect the quantum of accrued entitlement. No error was found in the factual evaluations regarding delays attributable to the respondents; thus, relief could not be granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed' "Order that the appellants pay the respondents' costs of the appeal"]