Grizonic v Suttor [2008] NSWSC 900

Grizonic v Suttor [2008] NSWSC 900

The common law proceeding was transferred because its pleaded damages claim was in substance a claim for breach of duty owed to the partnership, intertwined with the taking of partnership accounts in the Equity Division. The dismissal application failed because the alleged delay from mid 2007 was insufficient in light of the broader procedural history, including the defendants' own non-compliance and late service of evidence, and did not justify dismissal for want of prosecution.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Procedural Ruling in Equity Division Expedition List Concerning Transfer of a Common Law Proceeding and Dismissal for Want of Prosecution / Ex Tempore Judgment
Outcome
Proceeding 20002/05 transferred from the Common Law Division to the Equity Division and ordered to be heard together with proceeding 6141/03; application to dismiss proceeding 6141/03 for want of prosecution refused.
Legal Topics
['transfer From Common Law Division to Equity Division' 'proceedings Heard Together' 'evidence in Related Proceedings' 'dismissal for Want of Prosecution' 'partnership Accounts']
['civil Procedure' 'equity' 'partnership'] ['transfer From Common Law Division to Equity Division' 'proceedings Heard Together' 'evidence in Related Proceedings' 'dismissal for Want of Prosecution' 'partnership Accounts']

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

Procedural Ruling in Equity Division Expedition List Concerning Transfer of a Common Law Proceeding and Dismissal for Want of Prosecution / Ex Tempore Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether proceeding 20002/05 should be transferred from the Common Law Division to the Equity Division and heard together with proceeding 6141/03.' 'Whether proceeding 6141/03 should be dismissed for want of prosecution.']

Ratio Decidendi

The common law proceeding was transferred because its pleaded damages claim was in substance a claim for breach of duty owed to the partnership, intertwined with the taking of partnership accounts in the Equity Division. The dismissal application failed because the alleged delay from mid 2007 was insufficient in light of the broader procedural history, including the defendants' own non-compliance and late service of evidence, and did not justify dismissal for want of prosecution.

Court Disposition

Proceeding 20002/05 transferred from the Common Law Division to the Equity Division and ordered to be heard together with proceeding 6141/03; application to dismiss proceeding 6141/03 for want of prosecution refused.

Orders

  • ['Proceedings 20002/05 be transferred from the Common Law Division to the Equity Division.' 'Proceedings 20002/05 be heard together with proceedings 6141/03.' 'Evidence in one proceeding be evidence in the other.' "Ms Suttor's application to dismiss proceeding 6141/03 for want of prosecution is refused."]