Rahme v Satouris [2017] NSWSC 1222

Rahme v Satouris [2017] NSWSC 1222

Although the plaintiffs provided no real explanation for their non-compliance with the orders made on 14 June 2017, the third defendant proposed a form of order that would regularise and reinstate the proceedings. The appropriate source of power was UCPR r 1.12, which permits extension of time after expiry, not UCPR rr 36.15 and 36.16. Because the plaintiffs' defaults necessitated the motion and the plaintiffs sought the Court's indulgence, they were ordered to pay the relevant costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion Seeking Extension of Time, Setting Aside of Strike Out Order, and Reinstatement of Proceedings / Procedural Ruling
Outcome
Proceedings reinstated by extending time and granting leave to rely on evidence served by email on 30 June 2017; plaintiffs ordered to pay specified costs.
Legal Topics
['want of Prosecution' 'extension of Time' 'reinstatement of Proceedings' 'non Compliance With Court Orders' 'costs of Motion']
['practice and Procedure' 'costs'] ['want of Prosecution' 'extension of Time' 'reinstatement of Proceedings' 'non Compliance With Court Orders' '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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion Seeking Extension of Time, Setting Aside of Strike Out Order, and Reinstatement of Proceedings / Procedural Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time should be extended after the plaintiffs failed to serve evidence by the deadline fixed by consent orders and the claim was struck out for want of prosecution.' "Whether the order striking out the plaintiffs' claim should be set aside under UCPR rr 36.15 and 36.16." "Whether the plaintiffs should pay the third defendant's costs of the notice of motion."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the plaintiffs provided no real explanation for their non-compliance with the orders made on 14 June 2017, the third defendant proposed a form of order that would regularise and reinstate the proceedings. The appropriate source of power was UCPR r 1.12, which permits extension of time after expiry, not UCPR rr 36.15 and 36.16. Because the plaintiffs' defaults necessitated the motion and the plaintiffs sought the Court's indulgence, they were ordered to pay the relevant costs.

Court Disposition

Proceedings reinstated by extending time and granting leave to rely on evidence served by email on 30 June 2017; plaintiffs ordered to pay specified costs.

Orders

  • ["Further extend the time for compliance with order 1 made on 14 June 2017 until the date and time that the plaintiffs' evidence served by email on 30 June 2017 was properly served." 'Confirm that, by reason of the extension in order 1 above, the current pleading is the further amended statement of claim filed 8...