Chaina v Presbyterian Church (NSW) Property Trust (No. 10) [2013] NSWSC 499

Chaina v Presbyterian Church (NSW) Property Trust (No. 10) [2013] NSWSC 499

A further mediation was not appropriate because the proceedings had been on foot for about 11 years, previous mediation had been unsuccessful, new lawyers could facilitate settlement without a mediator, the cross-examination had already clarified the parties' positions so that offers and counter-offers could be made informally, a formal mediation would likely add costs and distract from preparation for the next tranche of the hearing, and the prospects of settlement at mediation appeared slight.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application by the Plaintiffs Under S 26 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 for Referral to a Further Mediation After Six Weeks of Hearing
Outcome
Application for a further mediation refused; directions made.
Legal Topics
['compulsory Mediation' 'further Mediation' 'interlocutory Directions' 'settlement Negotiations']
['civil Procedure'] ['compulsory Mediation' 'further Mediation' 'interlocutory Directions' 'settlement Negotiations']

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 / Application by the Plaintiffs Under S 26 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 for Referral to a Further Mediation After Six Weeks of Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proceedings should be referred to a further mediation under s 26 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 where an earlier mediation had been unsuccessful.' 'Whether new legal representatives, the cross-examination of Mr and Mrs Chaina, and the asserted last opportunity for settlement justified ordering a further mediation.']

Ratio Decidendi

A further mediation was not appropriate because the proceedings had been on foot for about 11 years, previous mediation had been unsuccessful, new lawyers could facilitate settlement without a mediator, the cross-examination had already clarified the parties' positions so that offers and counter-offers could be made informally, a formal mediation would likely add costs and distract from preparation for the next tranche of the hearing, and the prospects of settlement at mediation appeared slight.

Court Disposition

Application for a further mediation refused; directions made.

Orders

  • ['The Plaintiffs are to file and serve a schedule by witness name, statement date and paragraph number of the evidence in relation to any advance rulings made by the Court on 7 December 2012 which they now seek to be reversed, such schedule to be filed and served on or before 31 May 2013.' "The Plaintiffs are to...