Sipad Holding d d p o & Anor v Popovic, Nikola & Ors [1996] FCA 515

Sipad Holding d d p o & Anor v Popovic, Nikola & Ors [1996] FCA 515

Leave to file a cross-claim after final determination of the proceeding should only be given in very unusual circumstances with strong considerations of convenience, which are not present in this case; the motion is accordingly dismissed.

Parties
First Applicant: SIPAD HOLDING d.d.p.o.; Second Applicant: PERO VLADIC; First Respondent: NIKOLA POPOVIC; Second Respondent: DRAGAN KARAC; Third Respondent: MILAN JOVICIC; Fourth Respondent: JOSEPH JOHN GILLES; Fifth Respondent: AUSTRALIA FURNITURE PTY LIMITED; Sixth Respondent: SIDEX AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED (RECEIVER AND MANAGER APPOINTED); Seventh Respondent: SIPAD EXPORT IMPORT d.d.p.o.
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 June 1996
Procedural Posture
Motion for Leave to File Cross Claim / Decision After Application for Leave to File Cross Claim Post Judgment
Outcome
Motion dismissed
Legal Topics
Cross Claim After Final Determination, Federal Court Procedure
Practice and Procedure Cross Claim After Final Determination Federal Court Procedure

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SIPAD HOLDING d.d.p.o.

First Applicant

PERO VLADIC

Second Applicant

NIKOLA POPOVIC

First Respondent

DRAGAN KARAC

Second Respondent

MILAN JOVICIC

Third Respondent

JOSEPH JOHN GILLES

Fourth Respondent

AUSTRALIA FURNITURE PTY LIMITED

Fifth Respondent

SIDEX AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED (RECEIVER AND MANAGER APPOINTED)

Sixth Respondent

SIPAD EXPORT IMPORT d.d.p.o.

Seventh Respondent

Procedural Posture

Motion for Leave to File Cross Claim / Decision After Application for Leave to File Cross Claim Post Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a cross-claim may be filed after final determination of proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to file a cross-claim after final determination of the proceeding should only be given in very unusual circumstances with strong considerations of convenience, which are not present in this case; the motion is accordingly dismissed.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed

Orders

  • The motion is dismissed.
  • The sixth respondent pay the first, second, third and fourth respondents’ costs of the motion, excluding any relating to preparation, filing and service of affidavits not read on the hearing of the motion.