Lambourne v Baker [2024] NSWCA 280

Lambourne v Baker [2024] NSWCA 280

The plaintiffs failed to identify any clerical mistake or accidental slip or omission within the scope of r 36.17 of the UCPR in the challenged orders; their complaints were in substance grounds of appeal, which are not correctable under the slip rule.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Marc Alan Lambourne; Second Plaintiff: Glenn Craig Pollett; Third Plaintiff: Punters Show Pty Ltd; First Defendant: Dallas Matthew Baker; Second Defendant: Todd Cameron Buckingham; Third Defendant: BetMakers Technology Group Limited; Fourth Defendant: 12Follow Pty Ltd; Fifth Defendant: Operis Momentus Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Orders (motions) / Court of Appeal Determination on Notices of Motion
Outcome
Plaintiffs' notices of motion 11 and 12 dismissed.
Legal Topics
Slip Rule, Setting Aside Orders, Judgments and Orders, Procedural Fairness
Civil Procedure Slip Rule Setting Aside Orders Judgments and Orders Procedural Fairness

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 2 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marc Alan Lambourne

First Plaintiff

Glenn Craig Pollett

Second Plaintiff

Punters Show Pty Ltd

Third Plaintiff

Dallas Matthew Baker

First Defendant

Todd Cameron Buckingham

Second Defendant

BetMakers Technology Group Limited

Third Defendant

12Follow Pty Ltd

Fourth Defendant

Operis Momentus Pty Ltd

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Set Aside Orders (motions) / Court of Appeal Determination on Notices of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether orders made in Lambourne v Baker (No 4), (No 5), and (No 2) should be set aside under the slip rule (r 36.17 of UCPR)
  2. 2 Whether the matters raised by the plaintiffs come within r 36.17 (the slip rule)
  3. 3 Whether complaints constitute grounds of appeal or clerical mistakes

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs failed to identify any clerical mistake or accidental slip or omission within the scope of r 36.17 of the UCPR in the challenged orders; their complaints were in substance grounds of appeal, which are not correctable under the slip rule.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' notices of motion 11 and 12 dismissed.

Orders

  • Notices of motion 11 and 12 are dismissed.