Giuseppe Citterio Salumficio SPA v Zintix (Australia) Pty Ltd ACN 143376952 [2019] NSWDC 89

Giuseppe Citterio Salumficio SPA v Zintix (Australia) Pty Ltd ACN 143376952 [2019] NSWDC 89

Because the cross-claimant had not obtained and served expert evidence on the foreign law governing the alleged variation and had not amended the cross-claim to plead the law of its set-off claim, despite earlier directions and an admitted judgment debt in favour of the plaintiff, the Court ordered the cross-claimant to explain its non-compliance, serve expert evidence, file any amended cross-claim, pay the cross-defendant's costs of the day, and warned that substantial non-compliance would result in vacation of the stay of judgment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceeding Involving Pleadings, Foreign Law, Expert Evidence, Set Off and Stay of Judgment / Procedural Directions and Readiness/mention Orders
Outcome
Procedural orders made against the cross-claimant, including directions for affidavit evidence, expert evidence, amended pleading, costs, future listing dates, and a warning that substantial non-compliance would vacate the stay of judgment.
Legal Topics
['pleadings of Foreign Law' 'expert Evidence of Foreign Law' 'forum and Jurisdiction' 'set Off' 'stay of Judgment' 'costs']
['civil Procedure' 'private International Law' 'evidence'] ['pleadings of Foreign Law' 'expert Evidence of Foreign Law' 'forum and Jurisdiction' 'set Off' 'stay of Judgment' '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

Civil Proceeding Involving Pleadings, Foreign Law, Expert Evidence, Set Off and Stay of Judgment / Procedural Directions and Readiness/mention Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the cross-claimant had failed to comply with directions for expert evidence of foreign law and amendment of its cross-claim.' 'Whether the cross-claimant should be required to explain non-compliance, serve expert evidence, and amend the cross-claim to plead the law of its set-off claim.' 'Whether the stay of judgment in favour of the plaintiff should remain if the cross-claimant substantially failed to comply with further orders.' 'Whether the forum and applicable foreign law for the transaction and cross-claim had been properly addressed.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the cross-claimant had not obtained and served expert evidence on the foreign law governing the alleged variation and had not amended the cross-claim to plead the law of its set-off claim, despite earlier directions and an admitted judgment debt in favour of the plaintiff, the Court ordered the cross-claimant to explain its non-compliance, serve expert evidence, file any amended cross-claim, pay the cross-defendant's costs of the day, and warned that substantial non-compliance would result in vacation of the stay of judgment.

Court Disposition

Procedural orders made against the cross-claimant, including directions for affidavit evidence, expert evidence, amended pleading, costs, future listing dates, and a warning that substantial non-compliance would vacate the stay of judgment.

Orders

  • ['On or before Monday 11 March 2019, the cross claimant is to serve an affidavit explaining its failure to comply with orders made 23 November 2018 for service of expert evidence of foreign law; explaining its failure to amend the cross claim to specifically plead the law of its set off claim; and informing the...