AMP Warringah Mall Pty Ltd v Jewel Market Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 503

AMP Warringah Mall Pty Ltd v Jewel Market Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 503

Because all three proceedings arose from the same sprinkler failure at Warringah Mall and the primary issue as to liability would remain common despite any future defences, the interests of justice favoured transferring the two District Court proceedings to the Supreme Court rather than adjourning the application. The question whether the proceedings should be heard together and whether evidence in one should be evidence in the others was stood over for later case management.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Application by Summons Under S 140 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (nsw) to Transfer Two District Court Proceedings to the Supreme Court and to Have Them Heard Together With Existing Supreme Court Proceedings / Procedural Ruling
Outcome
Two District Court proceedings transferred to the Supreme Court; application for a joint hearing order stood over.
Legal Topics
['transfer of Proceedings' 'case Management' 'common Issues of Liability' 'joint Hearing']
['civil Procedure'] ['transfer of Proceedings' 'case Management' 'common Issues of Liability' 'joint Hearing']

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

Application by Summons Under S 140 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (nsw) to Transfer Two District Court Proceedings to the Supreme Court and to Have Them Heard Together With Existing Supreme Court Proceedings / Procedural Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether two proceedings commenced in the District Court should be transferred to the Supreme Court under s 140 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).' 'Whether the application should be adjourned until all defences in all proceedings had been filed.' 'Whether the transferred proceedings and existing Supreme Court proceedings should be heard together with evidence in each proceeding being evidence in the others.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because all three proceedings arose from the same sprinkler failure at Warringah Mall and the primary issue as to liability would remain common despite any future defences, the interests of justice favoured transferring the two District Court proceedings to the Supreme Court rather than adjourning the application. The question whether the proceedings should be heard together and whether evidence in one should be evidence in the others was stood over for later case management.

Court Disposition

Two District Court proceedings transferred to the Supreme Court; application for a joint hearing order stood over.

Orders

  • ['Orders 1 and 2 in the summons made.' 'The two District Court proceedings are transferred to the Supreme Court.' 'The application for order 3 is stood over to be considered on a later date.' 'All three proceedings are to be listed before McCallum J on 23 May 2017 at 9.30am.']