Re Nortex Pty Ltd (In Liq) [2003] NSWSC 1036

Re Nortex Pty Ltd (In Liq) [2003] NSWSC 1036

The proposed amendment was outside the scope of the slip rule because there was deep controversy about the form of the question and answer, and the applicants were in substance asking the original judge to construe the earlier answer by reference to transcript and submissions rather than to correct a clerical mistake or accidental slip or omission. Construing the judgment or answer had to be done in separate proceedings, not by reopening the matter under the slip rule.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application Under the Slip Rule in Corporations Proceedings / Interlocutory Process Filed on 24 September 2003 Seeking Correction of the Answer to Question 5 Answered on 22 June 2001
Outcome
Interlocutory process dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['slip Rule' 'correction of Judgment or Order' 'separate Questions' 'construction of Orders' 'issue Estoppel']
['civil Procedure' 'corporations'] ['slip Rule' 'correction of Judgment or Order' 'separate Questions' 'construction of Orders' 'issue Estoppel']

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

Interlocutory Application Under the Slip Rule in Corporations Proceedings / Interlocutory Process Filed on 24 September 2003 Seeking Correction of the Answer to Question 5 Answered on 22 June 2001

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicants' proposed amendment to the answer to Question 5 enlivened Part 20 (10)(1) of the Supreme Court Rules." "Whether the slip rule could be used to construe or qualify the court's earlier answer to a separate question by reference to transcript and submissions." 'Whether the motion should be dismissed or adjourned as premature, academic or an abuse of process.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed amendment was outside the scope of the slip rule because there was deep controversy about the form of the question and answer, and the applicants were in substance asking the original judge to construe the earlier answer by reference to transcript and submissions rather than to correct a clerical mistake or accidental slip or omission. Construing the judgment or answer had to be done in separate proceedings, not by reopening the matter under the slip rule.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory process dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The interlocutory process filed on 24 September 2003 by Kation Pty Ltd and Peter Lawrence Lewis be dismissed with costs.']