Textralian Enterprises Pty Ltd v Perpetual Trustees (Vic) [No 2] [1999] NSWCA 360

Textralian Enterprises Pty Ltd v Perpetual Trustees (Vic) [No 2] [1999] NSWCA 360

The Registrar found that, in accordance with the principle from Vakauta v Kelly, he was not entitled to amend the transcript without mutual party agreement and thus dismissed the motion to amend.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Textralian Enterprises Pty Ltd; Claimant/appellant: B & M Activities Pty Ltd; Claimant/appellant: Bennett Joseph Slattery; Claimant/appellant: Rhonda Daily Slattery; Opponent/respondent: Perpetual Trustees Victoria Limited; Opponent/respondent: Australian Prime Property Fund Custodian Pty Limited; Opponent/respondent: Perpetual Trustee Company Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 September 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Motion Before Registrar
Outcome
motion dismissed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Transcript, Admission of Further Evidence
Civil Procedure Amendment of Transcript Admission of Further Evidence

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Textralian Enterprises Pty Ltd

Claimant/appellant

B & M Activities Pty Ltd

Claimant/appellant

Bennett Joseph Slattery

Claimant/appellant

Rhonda Daily Slattery

Claimant/appellant

Perpetual Trustees Victoria Limited

Opponent/respondent

Australian Prime Property Fund Custodian Pty Limited

Opponent/respondent

Perpetual Trustee Company Limited

Opponent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Motion Before Registrar

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Registrar has power to amend the transcript based on affidavit evidence when parties are not in agreement.
  2. 2 Whether new evidence can supplement the transcript absent party agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The Registrar found that, in accordance with the principle from Vakauta v Kelly, he was not entitled to amend the transcript without mutual party agreement and thus dismissed the motion to amend.

Court Disposition

motion dismissed

Orders

  • Motion to amend transcript dismissed.
  • Costs reserved to court hearing appeal.