Ren v Jiang (No 3) [2014] NSWCA 204

Ren v Jiang (No 3) [2014] NSWCA 204

Leave for the third applicant to be separately represented was refused because separate representation at the late stage when the matter was ready to be listed would cause procedural complexity and prejudice in time and cost to the other parties that could not fully be compensated; there was no particularly compelling explanation for the timing of the third applicant's change of stance; and the third applicant could still retain lawyers of his choice by discontinuing his participation in the existing proceeding and commencing a fresh application for leave.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in Pending Applications for Leave to Appeal / Application for the Third Applicant to Be Represented Separately From the Other Applicants
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs; proceedings stood over to the Registrar's list on Monday 21 July 2014.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Applications' 'separate Representation' 'leave to Appeal' 'abuse of Process Motion' 'overriding Purpose' 'costs']
['practice and Procedure' 'civil Procedure' 'corporations'] ['interlocutory Applications' 'separate Representation' 'leave to Appeal' 'abuse of Process Motion' 'overriding Purpose' '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

Interlocutory Application in Pending Applications for Leave to Appeal / Application for the Third Applicant to Be Represented Separately From the Other Applicants

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the third applicant should be granted leave to be represented separately by his own solicitors and counsel in the pending proceedings.' "Whether the third applicant's interest in legal representation of his choice outweighed the procedural complexity, prejudice, time and cost likely to be caused to the other parties." 'Whether the third applicant could instead discontinue his participation in the existing application and commence a fresh application for leave to appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave for the third applicant to be separately represented was refused because separate representation at the late stage when the matter was ready to be listed would cause procedural complexity and prejudice in time and cost to the other parties that could not fully be compensated; there was no particularly compelling explanation for the timing of the third applicant's change of stance; and the third applicant could still retain lawyers of his choice by discontinuing his participation in the existing proceeding and commencing a fresh application for leave.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs; proceedings stood over to the Registrar's list on Monday 21 July 2014.

Orders

  • ['Application for the third applicant to be represented separately from the other applicants dismissed.' "The third applicant to pay the other parties' costs of that application." "Stand over the proceedings to the Registrar's list on Monday 21 July 2014."]