Wentworth v Rogers [2002] NSWSC 921

Wentworth v Rogers [2002] NSWSC 921

The motions to re-open were dismissed because adequate opportunity was given to address the relevant issues at hearing, evidence as to common usage of 'pro bono' is not generally necessary, and any errors alleged should be pursued via the normal appeal process. Permitting re-opening would improperly cast the judge in the role of review and undermine the finality of litigation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 October 2002
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal and Motion to Re Open Judgment / Motion to Re Open After Judgment Refused
Outcome
Notice of motion to re-open dismissed in both proceedings
Legal Topics
['re Opening Judgments' 'discretion to Re Open' 'leave to Appeal' 'costs Assessment']
['civil Procedure'] ['re Opening Judgments' 'discretion to Re Open' 'leave to Appeal' 'costs Assessment']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal and Motion to Re Open Judgment / Motion to Re Open After Judgment Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first instance judge should permit re-opening after judgment but before entry of orders' "Whether inadequate opportunity was given to address quantum meruit, de novo hearing nature, and 'pro bono' meaning"]

Ratio Decidendi

The motions to re-open were dismissed because adequate opportunity was given to address the relevant issues at hearing, evidence as to common usage of 'pro bono' is not generally necessary, and any errors alleged should be pursued via the normal appeal process. Permitting re-opening would improperly cast the judge in the role of review and undermine the finality of litigation.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion to re-open dismissed in both proceedings

Orders

  • ["In 13492/01, the plaintiff's notice of motion filed on 5 September 2002 is dismissed." "In 13494/01, the plaintiffs' notice of motion filed on 5 September 2002 is dismissed."]