In the matter of Oliver Brown Pty Limited [2013] NSWSC 738

In the matter of Oliver Brown Pty Limited [2013] NSWSC 738

Proceedings should be dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to appear or provide any explanation, no evidence was led in support of their case, and there was no utility in adjournment; dismissal is required under rule 29.7(4) UCPR to secure efficient court process and justice to other litigants.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Min Kyu Kim; Second Plaintiff: Min Jae Kim; Third Plaintiff: Dong Woo Seo; Fourth Plaintiff: BMJ Chocolata Pty Limited; Fifth Plaintiff: MTK Chocolata Pty Limited; First Defendant: Byung Sun (Eric) Song; Second Defendant: Jacob Jihoon Kim; Third Defendant: Oliver Brown Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Hearing at First Instance (ex Tempore Judgment)
Outcome
Proceedings dismissed for want of prosecution; costs awarded to the first defendant.
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Oppression Remedy, Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, Costs
Civil Procedure Corporations Law Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Oppression Remedy Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Costs

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Min Kyu Kim

First Plaintiff

Min Jae Kim

Second Plaintiff

Dong Woo Seo

Third Plaintiff

BMJ Chocolata Pty Limited

Fourth Plaintiff

MTK Chocolata Pty Limited

Fifth Plaintiff

Byung Sun (Eric) Song

First Defendant

Jacob Jihoon Kim

Second Defendant

Oliver Brown Pty Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Hearing at First Instance (ex Tempore Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proceedings should be dismissed for non-appearance of plaintiffs under rule 29.7(4) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether to adjourn proceedings or proceed to dismissal
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded against the plaintiffs

Ratio Decidendi

Proceedings should be dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to appear or provide any explanation, no evidence was led in support of their case, and there was no utility in adjournment; dismissal is required under rule 29.7(4) UCPR to secure efficient court process and justice to other litigants.

Court Disposition

Proceedings dismissed for want of prosecution; costs awarded to the first defendant.

Orders

  • The proceedings be dismissed.
  • The Plaintiffs pay the First Defendant's costs of the proceedings.