Wentworth v Graham & 1 Ors [2003] NSWCA 88

Wentworth v Graham & 1 Ors [2003] NSWCA 88

Ms Wentworth did not establish that the judgment of 10 December 2002 proceeded on any misapprehension of law or fact sufficient to justify withdrawal or amendment. The identified error concerning whether Brownie AJA had denied leave to appeal appeared only once, was corrected elsewhere in the judgment, and had no significance to the decision. There was no denial of natural justice or procedural fairness, and the application was an attempt to re-agitate arguments already considered, amounting to an abuse of process.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 April 2003
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure / Application to Withdraw or Amend Judgment of 10 December 2002
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['reopening Judgment' 'withdrawal or Amendment of Judgment' 'misapprehension of Fact or Law' 'finality of Litigation' 'abuse of Process' 'natural Justice and Procedural Fairness']
['civil Procedure'] ['reopening Judgment' 'withdrawal or Amendment of Judgment' 'misapprehension of Fact or Law' 'finality of Litigation' 'abuse of Process' 'natural Justice and Procedural Fairness']

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

Practice and Procedure / Application to Withdraw or Amend Judgment of 10 December 2002

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the judgment of 10 December 2002 should be withdrawn or amended because it proceeded on a misapprehension of fact or law.' 'Whether alleged errors identified by Ms Wentworth satisfied the threshold for reopening the matter.' 'Whether there was a denial of natural justice or procedural fairness.' 'Whether the application was an attempt to re-agitate arguments already considered by the Court.']

Ratio Decidendi

Ms Wentworth did not establish that the judgment of 10 December 2002 proceeded on any misapprehension of law or fact sufficient to justify withdrawal or amendment. The identified error concerning whether Brownie AJA had denied leave to appeal appeared only once, was corrected elsewhere in the judgment, and had no significance to the decision. There was no denial of natural justice or procedural fairness, and the application was an attempt to re-agitate arguments already considered, amounting to an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ["Ms Wentworth's application that Santow JA withdraw or amend the judgment of 10 December 2002 is dismissed."]