Kation Pty Ltd v Lamru Pty Ltd; Lewis v Nortex Pty Ltd (In Liq) (No 5) [2010] NSWCA 294

Kation Pty Ltd v Lamru Pty Ltd; Lewis v Nortex Pty Ltd (In Liq) (No 5) [2010] NSWCA 294

The requested amendments were unnecessary and inappropriate. The interest orders, properly construed in light of s 101 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), continued to require interest at the prescribed rate notwithstanding repeal of Schedule 5 and relocation of the rate to r 36.7 of the UCPR. The proposed correction of the Nortex orders was also unnecessary because the plain intent and effect of the orders were that the payment obligations to reconstitute the trust fund were enforceable by Nortex and the liquidator. Both motions were therefore dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Consequential Orders / Notices of Motion to Vary or Correct Court of Appeal Orders, Heard on the Papers
Outcome
Both notices of motion dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['variation of Court Orders' 'construction of Court Orders' 'post Judgment Interest' 'slip Rule' 'overriding Purpose']
['civil Procedure'] ['variation of Court Orders' 'construction of Court Orders' 'post Judgment Interest' 'slip Rule' 'overriding Purpose']

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

Consequential Orders / Notices of Motion to Vary or Correct Court of Appeal Orders, Heard on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Lamru Pty Ltd's notice of motion should be entertained to vary orders referring to interest at the rates payable under Schedule 5 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 after Schedule 5 was repealed." 'Whether interest ceased to accrue from 1 July 2010 on judgment debts where the judgment identified the rate as that prescribed in Schedule 5 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005.' 'Whether orders 3(e) and 4(c) should be corrected by inserting words directing payment to the liquidator for payment into the Nortex Unit Trust.' 'Whether any costs orders should be made on the notices of motion.']

Ratio Decidendi

The requested amendments were unnecessary and inappropriate. The interest orders, properly construed in light of s 101 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), continued to require interest at the prescribed rate notwithstanding repeal of Schedule 5 and relocation of the rate to r 36.7 of the UCPR. The proposed correction of the Nortex orders was also unnecessary because the plain intent and effect of the orders were that the payment obligations to reconstitute the trust fund were enforceable by Nortex and the liquidator. Both motions were therefore dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

Both notices of motion dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion filed on behalf of Lamru Pty Ltd on 7 September 2010 be dismissed with no orders as to costs.' 'The notice of motion filed by the liquidator on behalf of Nortex Pty Ltd (In liq), September 2010 be dismissed with no order as to costs.']