Singh v Singh (No 2) [2008] NSWSC 787

Singh v Singh (No 2) [2008] NSWSC 787

The further damages order for tortious interference with contractual relations was refused because the cross-claim, properly read, alleged interference directed at causing D S Flora to cease performing the building contract and did not plead a case that Shaunjit Singh induced or procured the Association's breach of its payment obligations to D S Flora. The requested inquiry under the undertaking as to damages was also refused because order 4A operated only on the Commonwealth Bank, and the Association was not adversely affected by the operation of that order: without it the Association could not access the bank funds, and with it in place it remained unable to do so in the events that...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings Involving Claims and Cross Claim / Consequential Orders Following Judgment
Outcome
One additional order made dismissing the cross-claimant's claim for damages for tortious interference with contractual relations; the requested damages inquiry under the undertaking as to damages was not ordered.
Legal Topics
['consequential Orders' 'undertaking as to Damages' 'interlocutory Orders' 'tortious Interference With Contractual Relations' 'pleadings' 'bank Account Mandate']
['civil Procedure' 'equity' 'tort' 'contract Law'] ['consequential Orders' 'undertaking as to Damages' 'interlocutory Orders' 'tortious Interference With Contractual Relations' 'pleadings' 'bank Account Mandate']

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

Equity Proceedings Involving Claims and Cross Claim / Consequential Orders Following Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an order should be made requiring Shaunjit Singh to pay damages to the Association for wrongful interference with contractual relations.' "Whether the alleged interference consisting of inducing or procuring the Association's breach of its payment obligations to D S Flora was pleaded." 'Whether the Association was a person affected by the operation of interlocutory order 4A for the purposes of the usual undertaking as to damages under rule 25.8 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005.' "Whether an inquiry into damages should be directed in relation to the plaintiffs' undertaking as to damages."]

Ratio Decidendi

The further damages order for tortious interference with contractual relations was refused because the cross-claim, properly read, alleged interference directed at causing D S Flora to cease performing the building contract and did not plead a case that Shaunjit Singh induced or procured the Association's breach of its payment obligations to D S Flora. The requested inquiry under the undertaking as to damages was also refused because order 4A operated only on the Commonwealth Bank, and the Association was not adversely affected by the operation of that order: without it the Association could not access the bank funds, and with it in place it remained unable to do so in the events that...

Court Disposition

One additional order made dismissing the cross-claimant's claim for damages for tortious interference with contractual relations; the requested damages inquiry under the undertaking as to damages was not ordered.

Orders

  • ["Order that the cross-claimant's claim for damages for tortious interference with contractual relations be dismissed."]