Collendina Pty Ltd v Murray Darling Basin Commission [2004] NSWSC 404

Collendina Pty Ltd v Murray Darling Basin Commission [2004] NSWSC 404

The plaintiffs’ pleading, while sparse and imperfect, is not plainly hopeless or doomed to failure; the action is not, at this stage, an abuse of process and should not be summarily dismissed. Since relevant documents are in the defendants’ possession, and factual issues concerning release of water and dam management are in issue, production for inspection should be ordered.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Collendina Pty Ltd; Second Plaintiff: Rohan Geoffrey Cranney; Third Plaintiff: David Kenneth Cranney; Fourth Plaintiff: Cranney Properties Pty Ltd; Fifth Plaintiff: Wongala Holdings Pty Ltd; First Defendant: Murray Darling Basin Commission; Second Defendant: John Lovering; Third Defendant: Geoff Gorrie; Fourth Defendant: Phillip Toyne; Fifth Defendant: Kevin Sheridan; Sixth Defendant: Michael Taylor; Seventh Defendant: David Stringer; Eighth Defendant: Edward Phipps; Ninth Defendant: Dennis Mutton; Tenth Defendant: Tom Fenwick; Eleventh Defendant: Richard Grimes
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Master’s Decision – Application for Summary Dismissal / Strike Out / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; orders for production and costs made.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Abuse of Process, Pleadings (sufficiency of Statement of Claim), Summary Dismissal, Discovery and Production of Documents
Tort Law Civil Procedure Negligence Abuse of Process Pleadings (sufficiency of Statement of Claim) Summary Dismissal Discovery and Production of Documents

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Collendina Pty Ltd

First Plaintiff

Rohan Geoffrey Cranney

Second Plaintiff

David Kenneth Cranney

Third Plaintiff

Cranney Properties Pty Ltd

Fourth Plaintiff

Wongala Holdings Pty Ltd

Fifth Plaintiff

Murray Darling Basin Commission

First Defendant

John Lovering

Second Defendant

Geoff Gorrie

Third Defendant

Phillip Toyne

Fourth Defendant

Kevin Sheridan

Fifth Defendant

Michael Taylor

Sixth Defendant

David Stringer

Seventh Defendant

Edward Phipps

Eighth Defendant

Dennis Mutton

Ninth Defendant

Tom Fenwick

Tenth Defendant

Richard Grimes

Eleventh Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Master’s Decision – Application for Summary Dismissal / Strike Out / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs' statement of claim pleads sufficient facts to establish a cause of action in negligence
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings are an abuse of process and should be summarily dismissed
  3. 3 Whether discovery can be ordered before a defence is filed

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs’ pleading, while sparse and imperfect, is not plainly hopeless or doomed to failure; the action is not, at this stage, an abuse of process and should not be summarily dismissed. Since relevant documents are in the defendants’ possession, and factual issues concerning release of water and dam management are in issue, production for inspection should be ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; orders for production and costs made.

Orders

  • The appeal from the Master's decision is dismissed with costs.
  • Orders sought in plaintiffs’ notice of motion filed 1 October 2003 for production of documents are made.