Ghosh v Renew You Cosmetics Clinic Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 193

Ghosh v Renew You Cosmetics Clinic Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 193

The Notice of Motion was dismissed because no basis was established to set aside the orders under r 36.15(1) or r 36.16 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, no inherent discretion should be exercised consistently with the finality of litigation, and the requested stay of costs orders was premature and unsupported where no Notice of Appeal or grounds of appeal had been filed and no enforcement or assessment of costs had commenced.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion Seeking Rehearing, Setting Aside of Judgment, Stay of Proceedings and Costs / Supreme Court Determination of Plaintiff's Notice of Motion Filed 24 December 2013 After Dismissal of Earlier Proceedings and Filing of a Notice of Intention to Appeal
Outcome
Notice of Motion dismissed; Dr Ghosh ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the Notice of Motion.
Legal Topics
['reopening Hearing' 'setting Aside Judgments and Orders' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 Rr 36.15 and 36.16' 'finality of Litigation' 'stay of Costs Orders Pending Appeal']
['civil Procedure' 'appeals' 'costs'] ['reopening Hearing' 'setting Aside Judgments and Orders' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 Rr 36.15 and 36.16' 'finality of Litigation' 'stay of Costs Orders Pending Appeal']

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

Notice of Motion Seeking Rehearing, Setting Aside of Judgment, Stay of Proceedings and Costs / Supreme Court Determination of Plaintiff's Notice of Motion Filed 24 December 2013 After Dismissal of Earlier Proceedings and Filing of a Notice of Intention to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the judgments or orders should be set aside under r 36.15(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 as irregular, illegal or against good faith.' 'Whether the judgments or orders should be set aside or varied under r 36.16 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005.' 'Whether any inherent discretion in the interests of justice should be exercised to set aside orders made by another single judge.' 'Whether the costs orders should be stayed where only a Notice of Intention to Appeal had been filed.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Notice of Motion was dismissed because no basis was established to set aside the orders under r 36.15(1) or r 36.16 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, no inherent discretion should be exercised consistently with the finality of litigation, and the requested stay of costs orders was premature and unsupported where no Notice of Appeal or grounds of appeal had been filed and no enforcement or assessment of costs had commenced.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion dismissed; Dr Ghosh ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the Notice of Motion.

Orders

  • ['Notice of Motion of 24 December 2013 is dismissed.' 'Order Dr Ghosh to pay the costs of the defendants of the notice of motion of 24 December 2013.']