Street & 7 Ors v Luna Park Sydney Pty Limited & 3 Ors [2007] NSWSC 689

Street & 7 Ors v Luna Park Sydney Pty Limited & 3 Ors [2007] NSWSC 689

The particulars already provided described the context in which the plaintiffs would contend that Luna Park Sydney Pty Ltd was the agent of Metro Edgley Pty Ltd, and sufficiently apprised the first and second defendants of the case they had to meet. Because the true relationship between those defendants was within their own means of knowledge, and it was not clear that discovery had disclosed all documents capable of illuminating that relationship, the notice of motion was dismissed with costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Supreme Court of New South Wales Equity Division Proceedings Concerning Pleading Particulars of Alleged Agency / Interlocutory Notice of Motion by the First and Second Defendants Filed on 18 May 2007
Outcome
First and second defendants' notice of motion dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['pleading' 'particulars' 'agency' 'discovery' 'costs']
['civil Procedure'] ['pleading' 'particulars' 'agency' 'discovery' '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

Supreme Court of New South Wales Equity Division Proceedings Concerning Pleading Particulars of Alleged Agency / Interlocutory Notice of Motion by the First and Second Defendants Filed on 18 May 2007

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiffs' particulars of the allegation that Luna Park Sydney Pty Ltd acted as agent of Metro Edgley Pty Ltd were sufficient to justify the pleading." "Whether the first and second defendants' notice of motion should be dismissed where the relationship between those defendants was within their means of knowledge and discovery had not clearly cast further light on it." "Whether the plaintiffs' costs should be assessed on an indemnity basis."]

Ratio Decidendi

The particulars already provided described the context in which the plaintiffs would contend that Luna Park Sydney Pty Ltd was the agent of Metro Edgley Pty Ltd, and sufficiently apprised the first and second defendants of the case they had to meet. Because the true relationship between those defendants was within their own means of knowledge, and it was not clear that discovery had disclosed all documents capable of illuminating that relationship, the notice of motion was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

First and second defendants' notice of motion dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["The first and second defendants' notice of motion filed on 18 May 2007 be dismissed with costs."]