Jackson-Grose & anor v Minter & ors [2001] NSWSC 920

Jackson-Grose & anor v Minter & ors [2001] NSWSC 920

The summons was dismissed because the plaintiffs had not prosecuted the proceedings, had failed over about five months to file and serve a statement of claim despite orders and directions, including directions made by consent, and did not propose to prosecute the summons as filed but instead contemplated materially different Common Law Division proceedings against different parties. The existing prayers for relief were either no longer practical, extremely general and unspecified, or of doubtful availability.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Supreme Court of New South Wales Equity Division Proceedings Commenced by Summons; First Defendant's Notice of Motion for Dismissal / Hearing of Notice of Motion Filed by the First Defendant on 10 October 2001 Under Part 5 Rule 12 of the Supreme Court Rules
Outcome
Summons dismissed; plaintiffs ordered to pay the costs of the first defendant's notice of motion and the defendants' costs of the proceedings.
Legal Topics
['dismissal of Proceedings' 'want of Prosecution' 'non Compliance With Court Orders and Directions' 'statement of Claim' 'costs']
['civil Procedure'] ['dismissal of Proceedings' 'want of Prosecution' 'non Compliance With Court Orders and Directions' 'statement of Claim' '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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Supreme Court of New South Wales Equity Division Proceedings Commenced by Summons; First Defendant's Notice of Motion for Dismissal / Hearing of Notice of Motion Filed by the First Defendant on 10 October 2001 Under Part 5 Rule 12 of the Supreme Court Rules

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the summons should be dismissed because the plaintiffs made default in complying with orders or directions as to the conduct of the proceedings or did not prosecute the proceedings with due despatch.' 'Whether the proceedings commenced by summons remained viable where the plaintiffs had not filed a statement of claim and contemplated different proceedings in the Common Law Division against different parties.']

Ratio Decidendi

The summons was dismissed because the plaintiffs had not prosecuted the proceedings, had failed over about five months to file and serve a statement of claim despite orders and directions, including directions made by consent, and did not propose to prosecute the summons as filed but instead contemplated materially different Common Law Division proceedings against different parties. The existing prayers for relief were either no longer practical, extremely general and unspecified, or of doubtful availability.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed; plaintiffs ordered to pay the costs of the first defendant's notice of motion and the defendants' costs of the proceedings.

Orders

  • ['Order that the summons be dismissed.' 'Order that the Plaintiffs pay the costs of the First Defendant of the notice of motion filed by the First Defendant on 10 October 2001 and that there be no other order in respect to the costs of that notice of motion.' 'Order that the Plaintiffs pay the costs of the...