Prime Capital Securities Pty Ltd v Sydney Commercial and Governmental Floor and Wall Tiling Services Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2016] NSWSC 543

Prime Capital Securities Pty Ltd v Sydney Commercial and Governmental Floor and Wall Tiling Services Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2016] NSWSC 543

The proposed Defence was largely incomprehensible and disclosed no defence to the possession claim, and the proposed Cross-Claim was also largely incomprehensible and disclosed no claim against either the Plaintiff or Gadens Lawyers Pty Ltd. After the Defendants had been given two opportunities over more than four months to plead a proper Defence and Cross-Claim and had failed to do so, leave to file the documents was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Proceedings Seeking Possession of Property / Leave Sought Out of Time to File and Rely on a Defence and Cross Claim After an Earlier Defence and Cross Claim Had Been Struck Out
Outcome
Leave refused to the Defendants to file the Defence and Cross-Claim.
Legal Topics
['possession of Land' 'mortgage Default' 'self Represented Defendants' 'defence and Cross Claim' 'leave to File Documents Out of Time' 'default Judgment']
['real Property' 'civil Procedure'] ['possession of Land' 'mortgage Default' 'self Represented Defendants' 'defence and Cross Claim' 'leave to File Documents Out of Time' 'default Judgment']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Proceedings Seeking Possession of Property / Leave Sought Out of Time to File and Rely on a Defence and Cross Claim After an Earlier Defence and Cross Claim Had Been Struck Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Defendants should be granted leave to file and rely on the proposed Defence and Cross-Claim served after the directed time had expired.' "Whether the proposed Defence disclosed any defence to the Plaintiff's claim for possession." 'Whether the proposed Cross-Claim disclosed any claim against Prime Capital Securities Pty Ltd or Gadens Lawyers Pty Ltd.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed Defence was largely incomprehensible and disclosed no defence to the possession claim, and the proposed Cross-Claim was also largely incomprehensible and disclosed no claim against either the Plaintiff or Gadens Lawyers Pty Ltd. After the Defendants had been given two opportunities over more than four months to plead a proper Defence and Cross-Claim and had failed to do so, leave to file the documents was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave refused to the Defendants to file the Defence and Cross-Claim.

Orders

  • ['Leave is refused to the Defendants to file the Defence and Cross-Claim.']