Totten v Remo Constructions & Ors [2001] NSWSC 472

Totten v Remo Constructions & Ors [2001] NSWSC 472

The third defendant failed to discharge its onus of clearly demonstrating that it was not the manufacturer of the bin or that the plaintiff's claims must fail; the admitted material, affected by evidentiary deficiencies, did not justify summary dismissal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Proceedings Arising From a Work Incident / Third Defendant's Notice of Motion Seeking Summary Dismissal of the Claims Against It
Outcome
Notice of Motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
['summary Dismissal' 'abuse of Process' 'issue of Fact' 'manufacturer Identification']
['civil Procedure' 'personal Injury'] ['summary Dismissal' 'abuse of Process' 'issue of Fact' 'manufacturer Identification']

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

Personal Injury Proceedings Arising From a Work Incident / Third Defendant's Notice of Motion Seeking Summary Dismissal of the Claims Against It

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the claims against the third defendant should be summarily dismissed under Pt 13 r 5 of the Supreme Court Rules 1970 as an abuse of process.' "Whether the third defendant demonstrated that the plaintiff's claims against it must fail because it was not the manufacturer of the steel waste bin."]

Ratio Decidendi

The third defendant failed to discharge its onus of clearly demonstrating that it was not the manufacturer of the bin or that the plaintiff's claims must fail; the admitted material, affected by evidentiary deficiencies, did not justify summary dismissal.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The Notice of Motion is dismissed.' 'The third defendant is to pay the costs of the application.']