Lachlan v HP Mercantile Pty Ltd

(2015) 89 NSWLR 198; [2015] NSWCA 130

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. › Consent orders
4. › Extension of time to comply
5. › Whether requirement for 'exceptional case' to vary consent orders based on contract impermissibly fetters discretion
6. › Whether refusal of extension manifestly unreasonable
7. › Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 1.12
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Judgments and orders
3. › Consent orders
4. › Effect of Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 56-58
5. › Whether overriding purpose provisions alter manner of exercising general discretion
1. Contract
2. › Settlement
3. › Deed of release
4. › Penalty doctrine
5. › Whether clause providing for payment of larger sum upon default constitutes penalty
6. › Whether implicit acknowledgment of present debt sufficient
7. › Whether recitals may be used as aid to construction to establish present debt
1. Contract
2. › Construction
3. › Recitals
4. › Use of recitals as aid to construction of operative provisions
5. › Whether recitals constitute admission of facts stated

Quick Take

When consent orders are based on an underlying contract, a party seeking to vary or extend time to comply must establish an 'exceptional case' as stated in Paino v Hofbauer; this requirement is not a fetter on discretion but a statement of appropriate exercise of discretion in that context. Sections 56-58 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) do not alter this position. A deed of settlement need not contain an express acknowledgment of a present debt to avoid the penalty doctrine; an implicit acknowledgment through recitals affirming debt obligations is sufficient.