Harmer v Hare (No 2) [2012] NSWCA 58

Harmer v Hare (No 2) [2012] NSWCA 58

The plaintiff's amended motion was dismissed because it was filed outside the strict time limits prescribed by the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules for varying the Court's orders and did not qualify for relief under the slip rule, as there was no clerical error. The costs order should stand because of the lack of timely renewal of settlement offers and no unreasonable conduct by the defendant. The Court declined to ante-date the judgment or award indemnity costs or interest from an earlier date.

Parties
Appellant: Luke Harmer; Respondent: Gavin Brian Hare
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Post Judgment Motion (costs and Interest)
Outcome
Plaintiff's amended motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
Costs, Interest on Judgment, Slip Rule, Offers of Compromise, Time Limits for Applications
Civil Procedure Costs Interest on Judgment Slip Rule Offers of Compromise Time Limits for Applications

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 2 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Luke Harmer

Appellant

Gavin Brian Hare

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Post Judgment Motion (costs and Interest)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to indemnity costs in the appeal
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff can obtain interest on the judgment amount from an earlier date than the date judgment was entered
  3. 3 Whether the court should ante-date the effect of judgment under UCPR r 36.4(3) or correct by the slip rule under r 36.17 where the application was out of time

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's amended motion was dismissed because it was filed outside the strict time limits prescribed by the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules for varying the Court's orders and did not qualify for relief under the slip rule, as there was no clerical error. The costs order should stand because of the lack of timely renewal of settlement offers and no unreasonable conduct by the defendant. The Court declined to ante-date the judgment or award indemnity costs or interest from an earlier date.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's amended motion dismissed.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's amended motion of 17 October 2011 is dismissed.
  • The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs of the motion.