The Owners – Strata Plan No 61233 v Arcidiacono [2018] NSWSC 1260

The Owners – Strata Plan No 61233 v Arcidiacono [2018] NSWSC 1260

Leave to file the proposed cross-claim was refused because, except for an inadequately pleaded abandonment allegation, the proposed claims were untenable and bound to fail. The evidence showed that the legal interests necessary to create the Book 8 and Book 13 easements were dealt with in the 1839 deeds, and the defendants were on notice of those easements before acquiring the passageways in 2008. The claims against the Registrar-General depended on the untenable premise that the easements were invalid or unenforceable. The defendants could not seek to set aside orders made in earlier proceedings on the basis that the former owner was denied natural justice, because that entitlement was...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to File Cross Claim in Equity Proceedings Concerning Alleged Easements Over Passageways / Notice of Motion Filed on 4 October 2017 Seeking Leave to File Cross Claim
Outcome
Leave to file cross claim refused; defendants' Notice of Motion filed on 4 October 2017 dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to File Cross Claim' 'pleadings' 'easements' 'qualified Title' 'subsisting Interests' 'procedural Fairness' 'standing to Set Aside Ex Parte Orders' 'case Management']
['practice and Procedure' 'equity' 'property Law' 'real Property'] ['leave to File Cross Claim' 'pleadings' 'easements' 'qualified Title' 'subsisting Interests' 'procedural Fairness' 'standing to Set Aside Ex Parte Orders' 'case Management']

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

Application for Leave to File Cross Claim in Equity Proceedings Concerning Alleged Easements Over Passageways / Notice of Motion Filed on 4 October 2017 Seeking Leave to File Cross Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to the defendants to file the proposed cross-claim.' 'Whether the proposed challenges to the validity and enforceability of the Book 8 and Book 13 easements were arguable.' 'Whether the proposed claims against the Registrar-General concerning recording of easements on the Register were arguable.' 'Whether the defendants had standing to seek to set aside orders made in earlier proceedings in the absence of the then owner of the passageways.' 'Whether the proposed abandonment claim was properly pleaded.' 'Whether case-management considerations, including delay and cost, supported refusal of leave.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to file the proposed cross-claim was refused because, except for an inadequately pleaded abandonment allegation, the proposed claims were untenable and bound to fail. The evidence showed that the legal interests necessary to create the Book 8 and Book 13 easements were dealt with in the 1839 deeds, and the defendants were on notice of those easements before acquiring the passageways in 2008. The claims against the Registrar-General depended on the untenable premise that the easements were invalid or unenforceable. The defendants could not seek to set aside orders made in earlier proceedings on the basis that the former owner was denied natural justice, because that entitlement was...

Court Disposition

Leave to file cross claim refused; defendants' Notice of Motion filed on 4 October 2017 dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Leave to file cross claim refused.' "The defendants' Notice of Motion filed on 4 October 2017 will be dismissed with costs."]