In the matter of Global Mortgage Equity Corporation Pty Limited [2013] NSWSC 2001

In the matter of Global Mortgage Equity Corporation Pty Limited [2013] NSWSC 2001

Leave to raise new matters was refused and evidence adduced on those matters was rejected due to plaintiffs’ failure to comply with prior court directions, lack of substantive explanation for delay, real prejudice to defendants, and overriding statutory objectives of case management, efficiency, and finality.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Zoltan Tomanovic; Second Plaintiff: Australian Financial Services Corporation Pty Limited; First Defendant: Global Mortgage Equity Corporation Pty Limited; Second Defendant: One Australia Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Leave to Raise New Matters; Consideration of Adjournment or Split Hearing
Outcome
Leave not granted to plaintiffs to raise new matters. Evidence given in cross-examination rejected.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Applications, Evidence, Case Management, Oppression Proceedings, Share Valuation
Civil Procedure Corporations Law Interlocutory Applications Evidence Case Management Oppression Proceedings Share Valuation

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zoltan Tomanovic

First Plaintiff

Australian Financial Services Corporation Pty Limited

Second Plaintiff

Global Mortgage Equity Corporation Pty Limited

First Defendant

One Australia Pty Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application for Leave to Raise New Matters; Consideration of Adjournment or Split Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs should be granted leave to raise new matters immediately prior to hearing
  2. 2 Whether hearing should be adjourned or split to accommodate new matters
  3. 3 Whether prejudice to the defendants would result from allowing new matters

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to raise new matters was refused and evidence adduced on those matters was rejected due to plaintiffs’ failure to comply with prior court directions, lack of substantive explanation for delay, real prejudice to defendants, and overriding statutory objectives of case management, efficiency, and finality.

Court Disposition

Leave not granted to plaintiffs to raise new matters. Evidence given in cross-examination rejected.

Orders

  • Leave is not granted to plaintiffs to raise new matters identified in 9 September 2013 letter.
  • No adjournment or split hearing is ordered.