Sanhueza v AAMI Limited [2010] NSWSC 1374

Sanhueza v AAMI Limited [2010] NSWSC 1374

The costs orders were entered in the computerised court record system on 16 July 2010. The plaintiff did not file a notice of motion within the 14-day period provided by UCPR 36.16 and by the costs order; the informal telephone request on 2 August 2010 and the motion filed on 25 August 2010 did not justify dispensing with the Rules or extending time. Even assuming power existed, it was not appropriate to dispense with the Rules or extend time because the Rules deliberately impose a non-extendable period to achieve finality. In any event, the original order that AAMI Limited pay one half of the plaintiff's costs was correct on the merits.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Administrative Law; Costs / Amended Notice of Motion to Vary Costs Orders and Extend Time After Judgment
Outcome
Motion to vary costs orders dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['variation of Costs Orders' 'entry of Orders' 'extension of Time' 'dispensing With Rules of Court' 'finality of Judgments and Orders']
['administrative Law' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['variation of Costs Orders' 'entry of Orders' 'extension of Time' 'dispensing With Rules of Court' 'finality of Judgments and Orders']

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

Administrative Law; Costs / Amended Notice of Motion to Vary Costs Orders and Extend Time After Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court had power to entertain the plaintiff's motion to vary costs orders where no notice of motion was filed within 14 days after entry of the orders." 'Whether time fixed by the costs order or the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules could or should be extended.' 'Whether the Court should dispense with requirements of the Rules under s 14 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005.' "Whether the original costs order that AAMI Limited pay one half of the plaintiff's costs should be varied on the merits."]

Ratio Decidendi

The costs orders were entered in the computerised court record system on 16 July 2010. The plaintiff did not file a notice of motion within the 14-day period provided by UCPR 36.16 and by the costs order; the informal telephone request on 2 August 2010 and the motion filed on 25 August 2010 did not justify dispensing with the Rules or extending time. Even assuming power existed, it was not appropriate to dispense with the Rules or extend time because the Rules deliberately impose a non-extendable period to achieve finality. In any event, the original order that AAMI Limited pay one half of the plaintiff's costs was correct on the merits.

Court Disposition

Motion to vary costs orders dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The amended Notice of Motion filed in court on 6 October 2010 and dated 1 October 2010 is dismissed.' 'The plaintiff is to pay the costs of AAMI Limited of the Motion of 25 August 2010 and the Amended Motion filed in court on 6 October 2010.']