Lawrence v Ciantar (No 2) [2020] NSWCA 186

Lawrence v Ciantar (No 2) [2020] NSWCA 186

There was no basis to set aside or vary the Appeal Judgment. Mr Lawrence's application sought to re-agitate matters already determined, which was inconsistent with the finality of litigation and outside the scope of UCPR r 36.16. The slip rule was not engaged because his complaints did not concern clerical mistakes or accidental slips or omissions. The procedural fairness complaint failed because objections to the bill of costs belonged in the costs assessment process and it was not shown that admitting the material as fresh evidence would probably alter the outcome. The complaints about the respondents' solicitor did not show any failure by the Court to deal with an appeal ground, were...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Court of Appeal Application to Re Open Decision / Notice of Motion Filed 26 May 2020, Determined on the Papers
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['application to Re Open Decision of the Court' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) R 36.16' 'slip Rule' 'procedural Fairness' 'solicitor as Material Witness' 'fresh Evidence on Appeal' 'finality of Litigation']
['practice and Procedure' 'civil Procedure' 'legal Profession'] ['application to Re Open Decision of the Court' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) R 36.16' 'slip Rule' 'procedural Fairness' 'solicitor as Material Witness' 'fresh Evidence on Appeal' 'finality of Litigation']

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

Court of Appeal Application to Re Open Decision / Notice of Motion Filed 26 May 2020, Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Appeal Judgment should be set aside or varied under UCPR r 36.16.' 'Whether the slip rule in UCPR r 36.17 applied to any alleged errors in the Appeal Judgment.' "Whether there was a denial of procedural fairness because relevant evidence was allegedly not put before the Court by the respondents' solicitor." "Whether alleged conduct by the respondents' solicitor, including giving affidavit evidence and alleged perjury, provided a basis to reopen the appeal." 'Whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend his reply submissions.']

Ratio Decidendi

There was no basis to set aside or vary the Appeal Judgment. Mr Lawrence's application sought to re-agitate matters already determined, which was inconsistent with the finality of litigation and outside the scope of UCPR r 36.16. The slip rule was not engaged because his complaints did not concern clerical mistakes or accidental slips or omissions. The procedural fairness complaint failed because objections to the bill of costs belonged in the costs assessment process and it was not shown that admitting the material as fresh evidence would probably alter the outcome. The complaints about the respondents' solicitor did not show any failure by the Court to deal with an appeal ground, were...

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Dismiss the notice of motion filed 26 May 2020.' "Applicant to pay the respondents' costs of the motion."]