CEG Direct Securities Pty Ltd v Shining Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 858

CEG Direct Securities Pty Ltd v Shining Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 858

It was appropriate to order separate determination because, if findings were made consistently with the third and fourth defendants' expert evidence as to forged signatures and the third and fourth defendants succeeded on the construction point, the proceedings between the plaintiff and those defendants would end and there would be no need for a further substantial contested hearing on other issues. The questions therefore met the r 28.4 basis for separate determination.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure Ruling in Possession Proceedings / Urgent Notice of Motion Before Final Hearing
Outcome
Separate questions ordered for determination; remaining issues and the balance of the plaintiff's notice of motion stood over.
Legal Topics
['separate Determination of Questions' 'mortgages' 'possession of Land' 'powers of Attorney' 'forgery' 'torrens Assurance Fund']
['civil Procedure' 'real Property'] ['separate Determination of Questions' 'mortgages' 'possession of Land' 'powers of Attorney' 'forgery' 'torrens Assurance Fund']

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 Procedure Ruling in Possession Proceedings / Urgent Notice of Motion Before Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether questions set out in the Separate Questions for Determination should be decided separately and in advance of all other questions in the proceedings pursuant to r 28.4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).' "Whether the balance of the issues on the pleadings and the plaintiff's application for leave under s 132(2)(b) of the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) should be stood over pending determination of the separate questions."]

Ratio Decidendi

It was appropriate to order separate determination because, if findings were made consistently with the third and fourth defendants' expert evidence as to forged signatures and the third and fourth defendants succeeded on the construction point, the proceedings between the plaintiff and those defendants would end and there would be no need for a further substantial contested hearing on other issues. The questions therefore met the r 28.4 basis for separate determination.

Court Disposition

Separate questions ordered for determination; remaining issues and the balance of the plaintiff's notice of motion stood over.

Orders

  • ['The matters for determination on the hearing commencing 6 July 2020 will be limited to the questions set out in the document prepared on behalf of the Registrar-General, originally headed Joint Statement of Issues but now marked as Separate Questions for Determination.' 'The parties are to further consider that...