MK and JA Roche Pty Limited & Ors v Metro Edgley Pty Limited & Anor [2004] NSWSC 780

MK and JA Roche Pty Limited & Ors v Metro Edgley Pty Limited & Anor [2004] NSWSC 780

Where the Court’s reasons for judgment, prior to entry of orders, suffer from infelicity of expression or ambiguity not amounting to an error in principle, the Court may correct those reasons by substituting appropriate language without giving fundamentally different reasons or altering the result reached.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 August 2004
Procedural Posture
Application to Recall/reopen Judgment / Post Judgment, Pre Entry of Orders
Outcome
Application granted in part: reasons corrected; no change to substantive outcome.
Legal Topics
['reopening Judgments' 'correction of Reasons' "court's Inherent Power"]
['equity' 'commercial Law'] ['reopening Judgments' 'correction of Reasons' "court's Inherent Power"]

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 to Recall/reopen Judgment / Post Judgment, Pre Entry of Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should recall and revise reasons for judgment before orders are entered' 'Principles governing the reopening or correction of reasons for judgment']

Ratio Decidendi

Where the Court’s reasons for judgment, prior to entry of orders, suffer from infelicity of expression or ambiguity not amounting to an error in principle, the Court may correct those reasons by substituting appropriate language without giving fundamentally different reasons or altering the result reached.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part: reasons corrected; no change to substantive outcome.

Orders

  • ['The revised form of judgment substitutes a new sentence in place of the last sentence of paragraph 49.' 'No change to the decision; paragraphs 49 and 50 as corrected do not entitle the suit to succeed.']