Hammercall Pty Ltd v Robertson & Anor; Hammercall Pty Ltd v Robertson & Ors

[2011] QCA 380

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Judgments and orders
3. › Setting aside
4. › Perfected orders
5. › Power of intermediate appellate court to recall and re-open perfected orders
6. › Whether inherent jurisdiction permits re-opening
7. › Whether s 58 Constitution of Queensland 2001 extends power beyond common law limits
8. › Whether UCPR 667 applies
9. › Constitution of Queensland 2001 (Qld), s 58
10. › Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 667(2)(d), r 667(2)(e)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Indemnity costs
4. › Applications frivolous, vexatious and abuse of process
5. › Whether indemnity costs should be ordered
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Courts and judges
3. › Disqualification for interest or bias
4. › Apprehended bias
5. › Application for recusal
6. › Whether application should be granted

Quick Take

Section 58 of the Constitution of Queensland 2001 does not confer on the Court of Appeal any power to re-open perfected orders beyond the narrow limits established by the High Court in Bailey v Marinoff and DJL v Central Authority. The decision of R v Pettigrew cannot be taken as giving any wider charter for re-opening judgments in civil matters. Applications to set aside perfected orders that mischaracterise the court's earlier reasons and are brought without any power to grant the relief sought will attract indemnity costs.