Inspector Selby v Mark David Coulbeck [No. 2] [2011] NSWIRComm 53

The application to vary costs orders under the slip rule was rejected because substantive changes to penalty determinations are not proper under Rule 36.17, and the reasoning for penalties and orders made on 1 April 2011 stood on the published reasons of the court.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 18 April 2011
Procedural Posture: Application Under Slip Rule (procedural) / Post Judgment Application to Amend Orders
Outcome: Application dismissed
Legal Topics: ['slip Rule' 'variation of Penalty Orders' 'costs Orders' 'occupational Health and Safety Act']

['industrial Law' 'occupational Health and Safety' 'civil Procedure'] ['slip Rule' 'variation of Penalty Orders' 'costs Orders' 'occupational Health and Safety Act']

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

Procedural Posture

Application Under Slip Rule (procedural) / Post Judgment Application to Amend Orders

Legal Issues

1 ["Whether the court's previous orders should be amended under Rule 36.17 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 to reflect additional costs in relation to each defendant." 'Whether it is proper to consider the application of the slip rule (Rule 36.17) in the circumstances of the case.']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

['I reject the application of the prosecutor.' 'The application is not a proper one to be considered in accordance with Rule 36.17 of the Uniform Civil Procedural Rules 2005.' 'I reiterate the orders of the Court of 1 April 2011.']