Almona Pty Ltd v Parklea Corporation Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 167

Almona Pty Ltd v Parklea Corporation Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 167

The Court declined to grant certain declaratory and proprietary remedies, or orders for inquiry, at this stage because those forms of relief were not sought or identified with sufficient specificity in the prayers for relief and because the parties had not had a fair opportunity to make submissions addressing their appropriateness. The Court held that the plaintiff is entitled, at this stage, to a money judgment against the first and second defendant for $4.25 million plus verified interest, as finally determined by the previous reasons for judgment. The Court dismissed certain claims against the third defendant (who had wholly succeeded), ordered the plaintiff to pay its costs, and stood...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Equity / Post Judgment, Determination of Appropriate Relief and Orders
Outcome
Interlocutory orders made: Plaintiff awarded judgment for $4.25 million plus interest against first and second defendants; specified claims dismissed; third defendant awarded costs; all other relief and proceedings stood over for further submissions and hearing.
Legal Topics
['declarations of Right' 'equitable Compensation' 'inquiries and Accounting' 'security for Costs' 'costs Orders' 'interest Calculations' 'dismissal of Claims']
['equity' 'civil Procedure'] ['declarations of Right' 'equitable Compensation' 'inquiries and Accounting' 'security for Costs' 'costs Orders' 'interest Calculations' 'dismissal of Claims']

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

Equity / Post Judgment, Determination of Appropriate Relief and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether to grant declarations not sought in the initiating process' 'Appropriateness and utility of declarations of contraventions between private parties' 'Whether to order damages/equitable compensation be paid before inquiry into possible set off' 'Proper process for ordering inquiries and accounts between mortgagor, mortgagee, and receivers' 'Whether plaintiff entitled to a proprietary remedy such as constructive trust or charge' 'Appropriate timing of return of security for costs and awarding of costs']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court declined to grant certain declaratory and proprietary remedies, or orders for inquiry, at this stage because those forms of relief were not sought or identified with sufficient specificity in the prayers for relief and because the parties had not had a fair opportunity to make submissions addressing their appropriateness. The Court held that the plaintiff is entitled, at this stage, to a money judgment against the first and second defendant for $4.25 million plus verified interest, as finally determined by the previous reasons for judgment. The Court dismissed certain claims against the third defendant (who had wholly succeeded), ordered the plaintiff to pay its costs, and stood...

Court Disposition

Interlocutory orders made: Plaintiff awarded judgment for $4.25 million plus interest against first and second defendants; specified claims dismissed; third defendant awarded costs; all other relief and proceedings stood over for further submissions and hearing.

Orders

  • ['First and second defendants to pay plaintiff $4.25 million plus interest of $923,373.38 for the period from 22 March 2016 to 28 February 2020, with interest accruing at $580.60 per day until payment.' "Plaintiff's claims as made in prayer A(c), prayer B, prayers 4 and 5, prayer 6 (in so far as providing...