Padovan & Anor v MGG Group Pty Ltd (in liq) & Ors [2011] NSWSC 789

Padovan & Anor v MGG Group Pty Ltd (in liq) & Ors [2011] NSWSC 789

The prejudice to the Plaintiffs and to the community in vacating the hearing date outweighs the reasons advanced by the Third Defendant. The application to vacate is dismissed. Solicitor for Third Defendant is granted leave to withdraw. Plaintiffs are granted leave to discontinue claims against the Fourth Defendant with no order as to costs.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Michael Paul Padovan; Second Plaintiff: Ravi Gangaram Bale; First Defendant: MGG Group Pty Ltd (in liq); Second Defendant: RCJ Holding Pty Ltd (in liq); Third Defendant: Mouhsen Gittany; Fourth Defendant: Steven Jeitani
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application to Vacate Hearing Date; Discontinuance as to Fourth Defendant
Outcome
Application to vacate hearing date dismissed. Leave granted for solicitor to withdraw. Leave to discontinue against Fourth Defendant granted with no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Application to Vacate Hearing, Case Management, Discontinuance of Claims, Leave to Withdraw as Solicitor
Civil Procedure Application to Vacate Hearing Case Management Discontinuance of Claims Leave to Withdraw as Solicitor

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Paul Padovan

First Plaintiff

Ravi Gangaram Bale

Second Plaintiff

MGG Group Pty Ltd (in liq)

First Defendant

RCJ Holding Pty Ltd (in liq)

Second Defendant

Mouhsen Gittany

Third Defendant

Steven Jeitani

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application to Vacate Hearing Date; Discontinuance as to Fourth Defendant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether hearing date should be vacated on application of Third Defendant
  2. 2 Whether solicitor for Third Defendant should be granted leave to withdraw
  3. 3 Whether Plaintiffs should be granted leave to discontinue proceedings as against the Fourth Defendant and order as to costs

Ratio Decidendi

The prejudice to the Plaintiffs and to the community in vacating the hearing date outweighs the reasons advanced by the Third Defendant. The application to vacate is dismissed. Solicitor for Third Defendant is granted leave to withdraw. Plaintiffs are granted leave to discontinue claims against the Fourth Defendant with no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

Application to vacate hearing date dismissed. Leave granted for solicitor to withdraw. Leave to discontinue against Fourth Defendant granted with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Mr Hadchiti and Paramonte Legal have leave to file and serve a Notice of Ceasing to Act for the Third Defendant.
  • Plaintiffs have leave to discontinue all claims for relief concerning the Fourth Defendant and there be no order as to costs as between the Plaintiffs and the Fourth Defendant.