Winau Aust Pty Ltd v LCC Property Development Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 1355

Winau Aust Pty Ltd v LCC Property Development Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 1355

The proceedings against LCC Property Development Pty Ltd should be dismissed because, after about five years, the first, second and fourth plaintiffs had not progressed the matter in any meaningful way, pleadings were not closed, expert evidence had not been served more than two years after being ordered, no hearing date had been fixed, there had been repeated failures to comply with court orders and notices to produce, and no explanation or appearance was provided by those plaintiffs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion Seeking Dismissal for Want of Due Despatch Under R 12.7(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) / Hearing of First Defendant's Motion
Outcome
Proceedings brought by the first, second and fourth plaintiffs against the first defendant dismissed for want of due despatch, with costs.
Legal Topics
['dismissal for Want of Due Despatch' 'non Compliance With Court Orders' 'overriding Purpose' 'case Management']
['civil Procedure'] ['dismissal for Want of Due Despatch' 'non Compliance With Court Orders' 'overriding Purpose' 'case Management']

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

Notice of Motion Seeking Dismissal for Want of Due Despatch Under R 12.7(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) / Hearing of First Defendant's Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proceedings brought by the first, second and fourth plaintiffs against the first defendant should be dismissed for want of due despatch under r 12.7(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

The proceedings against LCC Property Development Pty Ltd should be dismissed because, after about five years, the first, second and fourth plaintiffs had not progressed the matter in any meaningful way, pleadings were not closed, expert evidence had not been served more than two years after being ordered, no hearing date had been fixed, there had been repeated failures to comply with court orders and notices to produce, and no explanation or appearance was provided by those plaintiffs.

Court Disposition

Proceedings brought by the first, second and fourth plaintiffs against the first defendant dismissed for want of due despatch, with costs.

Orders

  • ['An order pursuant to r 12.7(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) that the proceedings brought by the first, second and fourth plaintiffs against the first defendant be dismissed for want of due despatch.' "An order that the first, second and fourth plaintiffs pay the first defendant's costs of the...