Cadence Asset Management Pty Ltd v Concept Sports Limited [2006] FCA 944

Cadence Asset Management Pty Ltd v Concept Sports Limited [2006] FCA 944

The application for leave to appeal interlocutory orders granting leave to file cross claims is refused; the trial judge acted within discretion and applied correct legal principles; pleadings were sufficient to notify parties of the case; any prejudice could be cured by particulars or later case management.

Parties
Plaintiffs: Cadence Asset Management Pty Ltd and Others; First Defendant: Concept Sports Limited; Second Defendant: Gary March; Third Defendant: Leon Daphne; Fourth Defendant: Jeffrey Taylor; Fifth Defendant: Steven Rolton; Sixth Defendant: David Carter; Seventh Defendant: John Moore; Eighth Defendant: Tim Jonas and others (Pitcher Partners); First Cross Respondent: CGU Insurance Ltd; Second Cross Respondent: Baker & McKenzie (A Firm); Third Cross Respondent: Scott Munro trading as Munro Legal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Interlocutory, Application for Leave to Appeal From Order Granting Leave to File Amended Cross Claims
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused. Application (notices of motion) dismissed.
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Orders, Pleading Requirements, Case Management, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct in Prospectus, Breach of Duty in Provision of Legal Services
Practice and Procedure Corporations Law Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Orders Pleading Requirements Case Management Misleading or Deceptive Conduct in Prospectus Breach of Duty in Provision of Legal Services

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 3 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cadence Asset Management Pty Ltd and Others

Plaintiffs

Concept Sports Limited

First Defendant

Gary March

Second Defendant

Leon Daphne

Third Defendant

Jeffrey Taylor

Fourth Defendant

Steven Rolton

Fifth Defendant

David Carter

Sixth Defendant

John Moore

Seventh Defendant

Tim Jonas and others (Pitcher Partners)

Eighth Defendant

CGU Insurance Ltd

First Cross Respondent

Baker & McKenzie (A Firm)

Second Cross Respondent

Scott Munro trading as Munro Legal

Third Cross Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Interlocutory, Application for Leave to Appeal From Order Granting Leave to File Amended Cross Claims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge applied correct principles in granting leave to file amended cross claims
  2. 2 Whether cross claims adequately plead material facts to notify cross-respondents of the case to meet
  3. 3 Whether leave to appeal should be granted under ss 24(1A), 25(2) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal interlocutory orders granting leave to file cross claims is refused; the trial judge acted within discretion and applied correct legal principles; pleadings were sufficient to notify parties of the case; any prejudice could be cured by particulars or later case management.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused. Application (notices of motion) dismissed.

Orders

  • The second cross respondent's notice of motion dated 14 July 2006 be dismissed.
  • The third cross respondent's notice of motion dated 14 July 2006 be dismissed.