Newmont Yandal Operations Pty Limited v The J. Aron Corporation & The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc & 3 Ors

(2007) 70 NSWLR 411; [2007] NSWCA 195

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Judgments and orders
3. › Amending, varying and setting aside
4. › Inherent jurisdiction to correct entered orders
5. › Where order has unintended consequences in related proceedings
6. › Whether inherent jurisdiction extends to correction of order with unforeseen legal consequences
7. › Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 23
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Judgments and orders
3. › Amending, varying and setting aside
4. › Slip rule
5. › Correction of error arising from accidental slip or omission
6. › Whether order resolving issue not adjudicated upon constitutes 'error'
7. › Whether correction extends to carrying into effect actual intention of court
8. › Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 36.17
9. › Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 56
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Judgments and orders
3. › Amending, varying and setting aside
4. › Intention of the court
5. › Whether relevant intention is objective or subjective
6. › Whether expressions of subjective intention by judge are evidentiary only
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Res judicata and estoppel
3. › Scope of res judicata arising from dismissal of proceedings
4. › Whether estoppel extends beyond actual grounds of decision
5. › Whether Anshun estoppel arises where issues already raised in other proceedings

Quick Take

The inherent jurisdiction and the slip rule in UCPR r 36.17 extend to correcting entered orders that have unintended legal consequences, including consequences for related proceedings, where the orders do not truly represent what the Court intended to pronounce. The slip rule must be interpreted in light of the overriding purpose in s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), which may lead to different results in NSW compared with other jurisdictions. The relevant intention is the objective intention of the Court, not the subjective intention of the judge. A res judicata estoppel arising from dismissal of proceedings is limited to the actual grounds given by the Court and does not extend to matters that could have been but were not decided.