Woolworths Limited v Strong (No 2) [2011] NSWCA 72

Woolworths Limited v Strong (No 2) [2011] NSWCA 72

The successful appellant is entitled as of right to restitution of any sum paid following reversal of judgment, with interest at the rates prescribed under s 101 Civil Procedure Act 2005 and UCPR 36.7, and not merely at market rates. The rate is to be ascertained according to the relevant rule at the time, and not retrospectively adjusted by later amendments. No special circumstances warrant a lower rate in this case. A short stay of execution is warranted to protect the First Respondent, but does not alter the running of interest.

Parties
Appellant: Woolworths Limited; First Respondent: Kathryn Strong; Second Respondent: CPT Manager Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Consequential Orders on Appeal / Post Appeal, Determination of Restitution and Consequential Orders After Reversal
Outcome
Judgment for the Appellant; restitution ordered with interest at the prescribed statutory rate; limited stay granted; partial costs order.
Legal Topics
Restitution Following Reversal of Judgment, Interest on Restitution, Stays of Execution, Costs on Appeal
Civil Procedure Restitution Following Reversal of Judgment Interest on Restitution Stays of Execution Costs on Appeal

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 4 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Woolworths Limited

Appellant

Kathryn Strong

First Respondent

CPT Manager Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Consequential Orders on Appeal / Post Appeal, Determination of Restitution and Consequential Orders After Reversal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the successful appellant entitled to restitution, and at what rate of interest, following reversal of a judgment that has already been paid?
  2. 2 Does the Court have discretion to award a different rate of interest upon restitution than the prescribed rate?
  3. 3 Should execution of repayment orders be stayed pending possible application to the High Court?

Ratio Decidendi

The successful appellant is entitled as of right to restitution of any sum paid following reversal of judgment, with interest at the rates prescribed under s 101 Civil Procedure Act 2005 and UCPR 36.7, and not merely at market rates. The rate is to be ascertained according to the relevant rule at the time, and not retrospectively adjusted by later amendments. No special circumstances warrant a lower rate in this case. A short stay of execution is warranted to protect the First Respondent, but does not alter the running of interest.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Appellant; restitution ordered with interest at the prescribed statutory rate; limited stay granted; partial costs order.

Orders

  • Judgment for the Appellant against the First Respondent for $285,768.66, plus interest at the rates prescribed for section 101 Civil Procedure Act 2005 from and including 22 February 2011 to date of payment.
  • Judgment for the Appellant against the First Respondent in the further sum of $36,789.73, that sum not to bear interest under s 101.