Scott v Bagshaw [2001] FCA 1564

Scott v Bagshaw [2001] FCA 1564

The motion was refused because the matters raised did not justify re-opening in the interests of justice: findings from the Supreme Court action were inadmissible to prove facts in issue, the 1994 and 1999 agreements were irrelevant to the issues presently before the Court given that Mr Scott asserted legal title, questions about unpaid advances could be addressed in any future taking of accounts, and the strike-out application was misconceived because the pleadings were not embarrassing merely for alleging facts that might not be sustained on the evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Motion by the First Respondent to Re Open His Case and to Strike Out Parts of the Statement of Claim / Determination of Motion After Hearing
Outcome
The first respondent's motion was refused.
Legal Topics
['application to Re Open Case' 'strike Out of Pleadings' 'admissibility of Findings From Another Proceeding' 'cross Examination' 'costs']
['civil Procedure' 'evidence' 'bankruptcy'] ['application to Re Open Case' 'strike Out of Pleadings' 'admissibility of Findings From Another Proceeding' 'cross Examination' 'costs']

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

Motion by the First Respondent to Re Open His Case and to Strike Out Parts of the Statement of Claim / Determination of Motion After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first respondent should be permitted to re-open his case to tender reasons for judgment from Supreme Court of New South Wales proceedings and recall witnesses for cross-examination.' "Whether the first respondent should be permitted to re-open his case to cross-examine about whether advances made in Mr Scott's name remained unpaid." 'Whether parts of the statement of claim should be struck out because Mr Scott pressed his case without relying on a pleaded document to which no weight had been attached.']

Ratio Decidendi

The motion was refused because the matters raised did not justify re-opening in the interests of justice: findings from the Supreme Court action were inadmissible to prove facts in issue, the 1994 and 1999 agreements were irrelevant to the issues presently before the Court given that Mr Scott asserted legal title, questions about unpaid advances could be addressed in any future taking of accounts, and the strike-out application was misconceived because the pleadings were not embarrassing merely for alleging facts that might not be sustained on the evidence.

Court Disposition

The first respondent's motion was refused.

Orders

  • ["The first respondent's motion, notice of which was filed on the 16 August 2001, is refused." "The first respondent pay the applicant's costs of the motion." "The third respondents' costs of the motion be their costs in the cause."]