Investa Properties Pty Ltd v Nankervis (No 8) [2018] FCA 443

Investa Properties Pty Ltd v Nankervis (No 8) [2018] FCA 443

The adjournment was granted because, on balance, common elements between the Federal Court cross-claims and the Supreme Court proceeding created a real risk that findings in the Federal Court could prejudice remedies in the Supreme Court proceeding; unnecessary duplication should be avoided if possible; the adjournment was not open-ended because it awaited interlocutory decisions on applications listed for hearing on 24 May 2018; the second respondent identified no prejudice of substance other than delay, which was not unfair or irreparable in the circumstances; the fourth respondent's explanation for its litigation choices was adequate at the interlocutory level; and costs thrown away...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Adjournment of Cross Claims / Determined on the Papers
Outcome
Application for adjournment allowed.
Legal Topics
['adjournment' 'cross Claims' 'cross Vesting' 'overarching Purpose' 'costs Thrown Away' 'related Supreme Court Proceeding']
['practice and Procedure' 'commercial and Corporations' 'corporations and Corporate Insolvency'] ['adjournment' 'cross Claims' 'cross Vesting' 'overarching Purpose' 'costs Thrown Away' 'related Supreme Court Proceeding']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application for Adjournment of Cross Claims / Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the hearing of three cross-claims in the Federal Court should be adjourned pending determination of transfer and strike-out applications in the Supreme Court of Queensland.' 'Whether the risk that findings on the cross-claims could prejudice remedies in the Supreme Court proceeding outweighed prejudice to the second respondent from delay.' 'Whether the adjournment was in the overall interests of justice having regard to the overarching purpose in s 37M of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).']

Ratio Decidendi

The adjournment was granted because, on balance, common elements between the Federal Court cross-claims and the Supreme Court proceeding created a real risk that findings in the Federal Court could prejudice remedies in the Supreme Court proceeding; unnecessary duplication should be avoided if possible; the adjournment was not open-ended because it awaited interlocutory decisions on applications listed for hearing on 24 May 2018; the second respondent identified no prejudice of substance other than delay, which was not unfair or irreparable in the circumstances; the fourth respondent's explanation for its litigation choices was adequate at the interlocutory level; and costs thrown away...

Court Disposition

Application for adjournment allowed.

Orders

  • ["The hearing of the fourth respondent's cross-claim against the second respondent filed 10 December 2012, the second respondent's cross-claim against the fourth respondent filed 15 December 2012, and the second respondent's cross-claim against Vero Insurance Limited filed 15 December 2012 be adjourned to a date to...