Crepe Myrtle Pty Ltd (ACN 110 345 492) v Rural Security Holdings Pty Ltd (ACN 081 322 161) [2014] NSWDC 25

Crepe Myrtle Pty Ltd (ACN 110 345 492) v Rural Security Holdings Pty Ltd (ACN 081 322 161) [2014] NSWDC 25

The defendant/cross-claimant's application for adjournment was refused due to late notice, lack of satisfactory evidence or explanation for non-compliance, persistent failure to file affidavits or comply with court orders, and repeated disregard for procedural deadlines. In the absence of any evidence supporting the defence or cross-claim, and given the plaintiff's compliance with all procedural directions, the defence and cross-claim were struck out and judgment was granted for the plaintiff in the sum claimed, including statutory interest and costs.

Parties
Plaintiff/cross Defendant: Crepe Myrtle Pty Ltd (ACN 110 345 492); Defendant/cross Claimant: Rural Security Holdings Pty Ltd (ACN 081 322 161)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff and cross-defendant; defence and cross-claim struck out; application for adjournment refused; costs awarded to plaintiff/cross-defendant.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Adjournment, Striking Out Pleadings, Costs, Compliance With Court Orders
Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Adjournment Striking Out Pleadings Costs Compliance With Court Orders

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crepe Myrtle Pty Ltd (ACN 110 345 492)

Plaintiff/cross Defendant

Rural Security Holdings Pty Ltd (ACN 081 322 161)

Defendant/cross Claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant/cross-claimant's application to adjourn the hearing should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the defence and cross-claim should be struck out for failure to comply with court directions and filing evidence
  3. 3 Entitlement of the plaintiff to summary judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant/cross-claimant's application for adjournment was refused due to late notice, lack of satisfactory evidence or explanation for non-compliance, persistent failure to file affidavits or comply with court orders, and repeated disregard for procedural deadlines. In the absence of any evidence supporting the defence or cross-claim, and given the plaintiff's compliance with all procedural directions, the defence and cross-claim were struck out and judgment was granted for the plaintiff in the sum claimed, including statutory interest and costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff and cross-defendant; defence and cross-claim struck out; application for adjournment refused; costs awarded to plaintiff/cross-defendant.

Orders

  • Defendant/cross-claimant's application to adjourn the hearing refused.
  • Defendant's defence filed on 4 June 2012 struck out and dismissed.