Carriage v Stockland (Constructors) Pty Ltd and Ors [No 5] [2003] NSWLEC 197

Carriage v Stockland (Constructors) Pty Ltd and Ors [No 5] [2003] NSWLEC 197

Security for costs was refused because there was no materially new basis to depart from the earlier refusal, the proceedings were not shown to be weak or otiose as a whole, a security order would effectively halt the litigation, other proceedings and speculative possible applicants were not relevant, the Applicant had a special interest including a procedural fairness claim, and no financial hardship to the First Respondent was shown. Dismissal for want of prosecution was refused because the conditions precedent in Pt 12 r 2 were not satisfied. The injunction over the AIR land was not lifted because there was no basis to do so and the proceedings were not dismissed. The amendment motion...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Proceedings / Interlocutory Notices of Motion for Security for Costs, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Discharge of Injunction, Costs, and Leave to Amend Pleadings
Outcome
Prayers 1 to 4 of the First Respondent's notice of motion were dismissed; the Applicant's amendment motion and prayers 5 to 8 of the First Respondent's notice of motion were stood over, with service required on TG Gibson Pty Ltd.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'open Standing' 'impecunious Litigant' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'dismissal for Want of Prosecution' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'aboriginal Relics' 's 90 Permit']
['environmental Law' 'planning Law' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['security for Costs' 'open Standing' 'impecunious Litigant' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'dismissal for Want of Prosecution' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'aboriginal Relics' 's 90 Permit']

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

Class 4 Proceedings / Interlocutory Notices of Motion for Security for Costs, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Discharge of Injunction, Costs, and Leave to Amend Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Applicant should be ordered to provide security for costs to the First Respondent in the sum of $98,700.' 'Whether the Class 4 proceedings should be dismissed for want of prosecution.' 'Whether the interlocutory injunction over the AIR land made on 20 November 2002 should be lifted.' 'Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to further amend the Class 4 application and points of claim.' 'Whether proposed amendments joining a new respondent should proceed without notice to that proposed respondent.']

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs was refused because there was no materially new basis to depart from the earlier refusal, the proceedings were not shown to be weak or otiose as a whole, a security order would effectively halt the litigation, other proceedings and speculative possible applicants were not relevant, the Applicant had a special interest including a procedural fairness claim, and no financial hardship to the First Respondent was shown. Dismissal for want of prosecution was refused because the conditions precedent in Pt 12 r 2 were not satisfied. The injunction over the AIR land was not lifted because there was no basis to do so and the proceedings were not dismissed. The amendment motion...

Court Disposition

Prayers 1 to 4 of the First Respondent's notice of motion were dismissed; the Applicant's amendment motion and prayers 5 to 8 of the First Respondent's notice of motion were stood over, with service required on TG Gibson Pty Ltd.

Orders

  • ["Prayers 1 – 4 of the First Respondent's Notice of Motion filed in Court on 28 April 2003 are dismissed." 'The Applicant is to serve its Notice of Motion dated 15 April 2003 with a copy of its proposed amended pleadings attached upon TG Gibson Pty Ltd by 1 July 2003.' "The Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 15...