Rockcote Enterprises Pty Ltd v FS Architects Pty Ltd (No.2); Carelli v FS Architects Pty Ltd (No.2) [2008] NSWCA 205

Rockcote Enterprises Pty Ltd v FS Architects Pty Ltd (No.2); Carelli v FS Architects Pty Ltd (No.2) [2008] NSWCA 205

No manifest errors or relevant misapprehension of fact or law were established to justify varying or setting aside the original orders; late provision of defence made no substantive difference; applications to vary costs (including for indemnity costs) were either not made within the required time or lacked sufficient merit. Orders as made originally should stand, with costs of this application to follow the event, except Rockcote could not recover costs relating to its application for a more favourable costs order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Application to Re Open/vary Court of Appeal Orders (consequential Orders) / Post Judgment Motion Following Delivery of Principal Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Notice of Motion filed 11 April 2008 dismissed with costs (with limited exception).
Legal Topics
['setting Aside or Variation of Judgment or Orders' 'time Limits for Varying Entered Orders' 'discretion as to Costs Orders' 'calderbank Offers' 'entry of Orders Under Court Rules']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['setting Aside or Variation of Judgment or Orders' 'time Limits for Varying Entered Orders' 'discretion as to Costs Orders' 'calderbank Offers' 'entry of Orders Under Court Rules']

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

Application to Re Open/vary Court of Appeal Orders (consequential Orders) / Post Judgment Motion Following Delivery of Principal Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether manifest errors existed in the principal judgment warranting variation or setting aside under UCPR 36.16.' 'Whether late provision of defence or other procedural irregularity justified re-opening judgment.' 'Appropriate approach to costs orders, including indemnity costs and the effect of Calderbank offers.']

Ratio Decidendi

No manifest errors or relevant misapprehension of fact or law were established to justify varying or setting aside the original orders; late provision of defence made no substantive difference; applications to vary costs (including for indemnity costs) were either not made within the required time or lacked sufficient merit. Orders as made originally should stand, with costs of this application to follow the event, except Rockcote could not recover costs relating to its application for a more favourable costs order.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion filed 11 April 2008 dismissed with costs (with limited exception).

Orders

  • ['Notice of Motion filed 11 April 2008 dismissed with costs, provided that the costs recoverable by Rockcote shall not include costs attributable to its application for a more favourable costs order.']