Wang v Farkas (No 3)

[2014] NSWCA 111

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Supervisory jurisdiction
3. › Scope of power to make orders
4. › Whether court exercising supervisory jurisdiction can substitute orders for those that should have been made below
5. › Whether court can make costs orders in court below
6. › Kirk v Industrial Court of New South Wales considered
7. › Edwards v Santos Ltd considered
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Judgments and orders
3. › Entry of judgment
4. › Clerical mistake
5. › Proposed orders mistakenly entered
6. › Power to correct mistake or error
7. › Removal of orders from record
8. › Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 36.17
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Costs in supervisory jurisdiction proceedings
4. › Whether successful party entitled to costs where primary arguments undeveloped until hearing

Quick Take

A court exercising supervisory jurisdiction cannot substitute the order it considers should have been made below if the correct order remains contestable; the matter must be remitted. The question whether the court can make an order reflecting the inevitable consequence of its reasons (extending Edwards v Santos) was left open. Orders entered by clerical mistake before parties have made submissions on the form of orders may be removed from the record under r 36.17 UCPR.