Neptune Hospitality Pty Ltd v Ozmen Entertainment Pty Ltd (No 2) [2022] FCA 427

Neptune Hospitality Pty Ltd v Ozmen Entertainment Pty Ltd (No 2) [2022] FCA 427

The Court held that the consent orders (11 March Orders) reflected the agreement reached between the parties as set out in the 11 March Letter; there was no ambiguity, no clerical error or accidental omission, and no mistake or misapprehension warranting setting aside the orders under r 39.05(h) or otherwise.

Parties
Appellant: Neptune Hospitality Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Ozmen Entertainment Pty Ltd (in liq); Second Respondent: Kanki Sea Tourism Hospitality & Entertainment Pty Limited (in liq)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application to Set Aside Consent Orders / Post Settlement; Application to Set Aside Consent Orders
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Slip Rule, Consent Orders, Settlement Agreements, Costs
Practice and Procedure Slip Rule Consent Orders Settlement Agreements Costs

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Neptune Hospitality Pty Ltd

Appellant

Ozmen Entertainment Pty Ltd (in liq)

First Respondent

Kanki Sea Tourism Hospitality & Entertainment Pty Limited (in liq)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application to Set Aside Consent Orders / Post Settlement; Application to Set Aside Consent Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a clerical error resulted in the accidental omission of certain language in consent orders making a material term ambiguous
  2. 2 Whether the consent orders reflected the actual agreement reached between the parties
  3. 3 Whether the consent orders were entered under mistake or misapprehension

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the consent orders (11 March Orders) reflected the agreement reached between the parties as set out in the 11 March Letter; there was no ambiguity, no clerical error or accidental omission, and no mistake or misapprehension warranting setting aside the orders under r 39.05(h) or otherwise.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The interlocutory application filed by the respondents on 21 March 2022 is dismissed.
  • By 3 May 2022 the parties are to provide proposed consent orders concerning the costs of the Interlocutory Application.