Nu Line Construction Group Pty Ltd v Fowler (No 3) [2014] NSWCA 229

Nu Line Construction Group Pty Ltd v Fowler (No 3) [2014] NSWCA 229

The appellant was not to be held to the July 2011 pleaded date because the Court accepted the explanation that it resulted from a typographical error and there was no showing that the trial was conducted on that basis. For the purposes of s 100(1)(b), the cause of action arose when the project was abandoned, which was the July 2006 meeting accepted in the principal judgment; because the precise date of that meeting was not established, interest should commence on 1 August 2006. The judgment sum should therefore be varied to include the adjusted capital sum and net interest.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Consequential Orders / On the Papers; Variation of Orders After Principal Judgment
Outcome
Order (2) made on 17 March 2014 varied with effect from that date.
Legal Topics
['pre Judgment Interest' 'calculation of Interest' 'date From Which Interest Ran' 'date When Cause of Action Arose' 'variation of Orders' 'judgment Sum Failed to Include Judgment Interest']
['interest' 'practice and Procedure'] ['pre Judgment Interest' 'calculation of Interest' 'date From Which Interest Ran' 'date When Cause of Action Arose' 'variation of Orders' 'judgment Sum Failed to Include Judgment Interest']

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

Consequential Orders / On the Papers; Variation of Orders After Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What commencement date should be used for calculating pre-judgment interest on the moneys recovered by the appellant from the respondents.' 'Whether the appellant should be held to the July 2011 interest date pleaded in the further amended statement of claim.' 'Whether interest should run from the date the purpose for the payments failed or from the date of demand for repayment.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was not to be held to the July 2011 pleaded date because the Court accepted the explanation that it resulted from a typographical error and there was no showing that the trial was conducted on that basis. For the purposes of s 100(1)(b), the cause of action arose when the project was abandoned, which was the July 2006 meeting accepted in the principal judgment; because the precise date of that meeting was not established, interest should commence on 1 August 2006. The judgment sum should therefore be varied to include the adjusted capital sum and net interest.

Court Disposition

Order (2) made on 17 March 2014 varied with effect from that date.

Orders

  • ['Vary order (2) made on 17 March 2014, with effect from that date, to read:' 'Give judgment for the appellant against the respondents in the sum of $251,162.']