Cairnsmore Holdings Pty Ltd v Bearsden Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 700

Cairnsmore Holdings Pty Ltd v Bearsden Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 700

Order 3 should be varied under the slip rule because it failed to reflect the Court's intention that interest be payable on the first instalment and because the absence of judgment for interest on recoverable expenses was also a slip rule error; however, the respondents' time to appeal should be extended so that they are not prejudiced by the belated slip rule application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Supplementary Reasons for Judgment on Slip Rule Application / Post Judgment Application to Vary Orders Made on 20 December 2007 and Extend Time to Appeal
Outcome
Slip rule application granted; orders varied; time for respondents to appeal extended; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['slip Rule' 'variation of Orders' 'judgment Interest' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'costs']
['civil Procedure' 'practice and Procedure'] ['slip Rule' 'variation of Orders' 'judgment Interest' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'costs']

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

Supplementary Reasons for Judgment on Slip Rule Application / Post Judgment Application to Vary Orders Made on 20 December 2007 and Extend Time to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Order 3 made on 20 December 2007 contained an accidental slip or omission by failing to reflect the Court's intention that interest be payable on the first instalment." 'Whether no judgment for interest on the recoverable expenses component of the judgment was an error covered by the slip rule.' 'Whether the respondents should be protected from prejudice to any appeal rights if the slip rule orders were made.']

Ratio Decidendi

Order 3 should be varied under the slip rule because it failed to reflect the Court's intention that interest be payable on the first instalment and because the absence of judgment for interest on recoverable expenses was also a slip rule error; however, the respondents' time to appeal should be extended so that they are not prejudiced by the belated slip rule application.

Court Disposition

Slip rule application granted; orders varied; time for respondents to appeal extended; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['Order 3 made on 20 December 2007 be vacated, and the following be substituted: The judgment for $727,898.03 under Order 1 made on 20 December 2007 against the first respondent includes the judgment against the first respondent for $351,835.00, but not for interest thereon, as referred to in Order 2 made on 20...