Bird v Bird (No 2) [2013] NSWCA 380
The Court varied the order as to judgment amount due to a clear factual misapprehension not attributable to the parties, leaving other aspects unchanged, and dismissed applications to vary costs as not justified. Interest is awarded from 2 December 2000, and no adjustment for delay is warranted.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 18 November 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Post Judgment Motions and Variation
- Outcome
- Order varied in part; notices of motion otherwise dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- ['variation of Judgment' 'costs' 'interest on Damages' 'finality of Litigation']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Post Judgment Motions and Variation
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether judgment amount should be varied due to factual misapprehension' 'Whether costs orders at first instance and on appeal should be varied' 'Appropriate date for awarding interest under Civil Procedure Act 2005 s 100' 'Whether delay by applicant affects entitlement to interest']
Ratio Decidendi
The Court varied the order as to judgment amount due to a clear factual misapprehension not attributable to the parties, leaving other aspects unchanged, and dismissed applications to vary costs as not justified. Interest is awarded from 2 December 2000, and no adjustment for delay is warranted.
Court Disposition
Order varied in part; notices of motion otherwise dismissed.
Orders
- ['Vary order (3) made on 16 August 2013 to substitute the amount of $122,652.35 for the amount of $188,920.25.' "Otherwise dismiss the respondents' Notices of Motion." "No order as to costs of the respondents' Notices of Motion or as to the post 16 August 2013 interest submissions and calculations." "Direct Deborah...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment