Lewis v Nortex Pty Ltd (In Liq); Lamru Pty Ltd v Kation Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 271

Lewis v Nortex Pty Ltd (In Liq); Lamru Pty Ltd v Kation Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 271

No representative should be appointed or joined for the Nortex Unit Trust because the only persons who could be represented were the plaintiff and the first defendant, who were already parties and would be bound by any decision; a joinder would have no real utility and would add unnecessary cost and complexity.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 April 2002
Procedural Posture
Equity Division Proceedings Concerning Representative Orders and Parties / Decision on Whether to Appoint and Join a Representative of the Nortex Unit Trust and on the Plaintiff's Motion of 3 August 2000
Outcome
No separate representative of the beneficiaries of the Nortex Unit Trust was to be appointed or joined as a defendant; the plaintiff's motion of 3 August 2000 was to be dismissed with no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['representative Orders' 'joinder of Parties' 'representation of Trust Beneficiaries' 'supreme Court Rules 1970 Part 8 Rr 13 & 14' 'costs of Motion']
['civil Procedure' 'equity' 'trusts'] ['representative Orders' 'joinder of Parties' 'representation of Trust Beneficiaries' 'supreme Court Rules 1970 Part 8 Rr 13 & 14' 'costs of Motion']

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

Equity Division Proceedings Concerning Representative Orders and Parties / Decision on Whether to Appoint and Join a Representative of the Nortex Unit Trust and on the Plaintiff's Motion of 3 August 2000

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether, in the absence of a present trustee of the Nortex Unit Trust, a representative of that Trust should be appointed and made a party to the proceedings.' 'Whether Supreme Court Rules 1970 Part 8 r 13 or Part 8 r 14 provided power to make such an appointment.' 'Whether appointing a representative would be expedient for the purpose of saving expense where the only beneficiaries of the Trust were already parties.']

Ratio Decidendi

No representative should be appointed or joined for the Nortex Unit Trust because the only persons who could be represented were the plaintiff and the first defendant, who were already parties and would be bound by any decision; a joinder would have no real utility and would add unnecessary cost and complexity.

Court Disposition

No separate representative of the beneficiaries of the Nortex Unit Trust was to be appointed or joined as a defendant; the plaintiff's motion of 3 August 2000 was to be dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['No additional representative should be appointed in respect of the Nortex Unit Trust or the property subject to it.' "The plaintiff's motion of 3 August 2000 is dismissed." 'There be no order as to the costs of the motion.']