Almona Pty Ltd v Parklea Corporation Pty Ltd (No 3) [2020] NSWSC 226

Almona Pty Ltd v Parklea Corporation Pty Ltd (No 3) [2020] NSWSC 226

Because unresolved issues of pleading, procedural fairness, the scope of any inquiry or account, possible proprietary declarations, costs and the timing of appeals remained, it was inappropriate to make the proposed substantive orders immediately. The only orders made were to stand the proceedings over to 10 AM on 9 April 2020, permit notices of motion returnable on that date, and indicate that outstanding issues would then be dealt with or directions given.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings; Procedural and Other Rulings / On the Papers Following Principal Judgment and Submissions on Proposed Orders
Outcome
Proceedings stood over; substantive proposed orders deferred.
Legal Topics
['proposed Final and Interlocutory Orders' 'procedural Fairness' "mortgagee's Duty and Accounting" 'caveats' 'dismissal of Prayers for Relief' 'sanderson Order' 'case Management']
['equity' 'civil Procedure' 'mortgage Law' 'costs'] ['proposed Final and Interlocutory Orders' 'procedural Fairness' "mortgagee's Duty and Accounting" 'caveats' 'dismissal of Prayers for Relief' 'sanderson Order' 'case Management']

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 Proceedings; Procedural and Other Rulings / On the Papers Following Principal Judgment and Submissions on Proposed Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an order should presently be made requiring the first and second defendants to pay the plaintiff $4.25 million plus interest.' "Whether parts of the plaintiff's prayers for relief should be dismissed following the principal judgment." "Whether the plaintiff's claims against the third defendant should be dismissed at this stage." "Whether the plaintiff should now be ordered to pay the third defendant's costs or whether any Sanderson order application should be determined later." 'What directions should be made for the future conduct of the proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because unresolved issues of pleading, procedural fairness, the scope of any inquiry or account, possible proprietary declarations, costs and the timing of appeals remained, it was inappropriate to make the proposed substantive orders immediately. The only orders made were to stand the proceedings over to 10 AM on 9 April 2020, permit notices of motion returnable on that date, and indicate that outstanding issues would then be dealt with or directions given.

Court Disposition

Proceedings stood over; substantive proposed orders deferred.

Orders

  • ['Order that these proceedings are stood over to 10 AM on 9 April 2020 before Robb J.' 'Order that the parties have leave to file such notices of motion as they may be advised to file, such notices of motion to be returnable at 10 AM on 9 April 2020 before Robb J.' 'On 9 April 2020, the Court will deal with as many...