Joubert in his capacity as liquidator of Barry Ling Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) v Allan Jones (No 3) [2013] NSWSC 573

Joubert in his capacity as liquidator of Barry Ling Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) v Allan Jones (No 3) [2013] NSWSC 573

Assuming without deciding that the Court had power under the slip rule or inherent jurisdiction to grant the relief sought, the application was refused because the interest in finality, considered in light of the nature and history of the proceedings, outweighed the liquidator's position concerning the indemnity costs order and the relief sought was in substance an indulgence following an overlooked issue by the liquidator's representatives.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal From a Decision of the Local Court; Notice of Motion Seeking Costs Related Orders Under the Slip Rule or Inherent Jurisdiction / Application After Appeal Judgment for Correction, Setting Aside or Variation of Costs Orders
Outcome
The liquidator's application for orders 1 to 3 in the notice of motion filed 16 April 2013 is refused.
Legal Topics
['slip Rule' 'variation or Setting Aside of Judgments and Orders' 'costs Orders' 'indemnity Costs' 'voidable Transactions' 'appeal From Local Court']
['civil Procedure' 'corporations' 'costs'] ['slip Rule' 'variation or Setting Aside of Judgments and Orders' 'costs Orders' 'indemnity Costs' 'voidable Transactions' 'appeal From Local Court']

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

Appeal From a Decision of the Local Court; Notice of Motion Seeking Costs Related Orders Under the Slip Rule or Inherent Jurisdiction / Application After Appeal Judgment for Correction, Setting Aside or Variation of Costs Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court had power under the slip rule in r 36.17 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 or its inherent jurisdiction to grant orders concerning the Local Court costs order in favour of the first defendant.' 'Whether, if power existed, the Court should exercise its discretion to grant the liquidator leave to appeal against and set aside or vary the Local Court costs order concerning the first defendant.' 'Whether the unforeseen consequence of dismissing the appeal against the first defendant justified disturbing the costs order made below.']

Ratio Decidendi

Assuming without deciding that the Court had power under the slip rule or inherent jurisdiction to grant the relief sought, the application was refused because the interest in finality, considered in light of the nature and history of the proceedings, outweighed the liquidator's position concerning the indemnity costs order and the relief sought was in substance an indulgence following an overlooked issue by the liquidator's representatives.

Court Disposition

The liquidator's application for orders 1 to 3 in the notice of motion filed 16 April 2013 is refused.

Orders

  • ["The liquidator's application for orders 1 to 3 in the notice of motion filed 16 April 2013 is refused."]