Shafron v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (No 2) [2013] NSWCA 144

Shafron v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (No 2) [2013] NSWCA 144

Order 3 should be amended, as its original form did not reflect the joint intention of the parties or the effect the Court intended, and would otherwise deprive ASIC of the intended benefit of the costs order covering all issues of liability.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Peter James Shafron; Respondent: Australian Securities and Investments Commission
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Post Judgment Motion for Variation of Orders
Outcome
Order 3 varied as sought; no order as to costs on the motion
Legal Topics
Variation of Orders, Costs
Procedure Variation of Orders Costs

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter James Shafron

Appellant

Australian Securities and Investments Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Post Judgment Motion for Variation of Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Order 3 should be varied under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r 36.17 due to accidental slip or omission
  2. 2 Scope of costs liability for Mr Shafron

Ratio Decidendi

Order 3 should be amended, as its original form did not reflect the joint intention of the parties or the effect the Court intended, and would otherwise deprive ASIC of the intended benefit of the costs order covering all issues of liability.

Court Disposition

Order 3 varied as sought; no order as to costs on the motion

Orders

  • Order 3 in CA 2012/195077 amended by replacing 'in relation to the issue of approval of the Draft ASX Announcement' with 'on liability' and deleting the words that follow '2009/298524'.
  • No order for costs of the motion.