Paltos v Bartier Perry Pty Ltd (No 3) [2021] NSWSC 25

Paltos v Bartier Perry Pty Ltd (No 3) [2021] NSWSC 25

It is inappropriate for the Court to alter the judgment entered on 1 December 2020 as the application to vary was made outside the prescribed period, and no sufficient basis exists under the slip rule or manifest intention doctrine to change the orders.

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Motion / Post Judgment, Consequential Orders
Outcome
Motion dismissed
Legal Topics
['amending Orders' 'pre Judgment Interest' 'slip Rule' 'manifest Intention of Court']
['civil Procedure'] ['amending Orders' 'pre Judgment Interest' 'slip Rule' 'manifest Intention of Court']

Source-derived case record

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

Motion / Post Judgment, Consequential Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether orders issued on 1 December 2020 should be varied to reflect the intention of the Court regarding pre-judgment interest rate' 'Whether application to vary orders made outside limits in UCPR r 36.16(3A) can succeed' "Whether 'slip' rule or other powers apply to alter entered judgment"]

Ratio Decidendi

It is inappropriate for the Court to alter the judgment entered on 1 December 2020 as the application to vary was made outside the prescribed period, and no sufficient basis exists under the slip rule or manifest intention doctrine to change the orders.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed

Orders

  • ['Motion dismissed' 'No order for costs']