NEVILLE v LICARDY [1996] NSWCA 388

NEVILLE v LICARDY [1996] NSWCA 388

The trial judge cannot provide supplementary reasons after orders are entered and the case is before the appellate court unless it is within the slip rule or inherent jurisdiction to correct clerical errors; thus, the application to stand over the appeal was refused and the appeal was dismissed with costs as the original grounds were no longer pressed.

Parties
Appellant: Neville; Respondent: Licardy
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 March 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application During Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Supplementary Reasons, Slip Rule, Appeal Dismissal
Civil Procedure Supplementary Reasons Slip Rule Appeal Dismissal

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 Party arguments 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Neville

Appellant

Licardy

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application During Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal should be stood over generally to permit application for supplementary reasons from the trial judge after orders had been entered

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge cannot provide supplementary reasons after orders are entered and the case is before the appellate court unless it is within the slip rule or inherent jurisdiction to correct clerical errors; thus, the application to stand over the appeal was refused and the appeal was dismissed with costs as the original grounds were no longer pressed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application to have the appeal stood over generally is refused.
  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.