Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd v Zepinic & Anor [No 6] [2010] NSWSC 538

Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd v Zepinic & Anor [No 6] [2010] NSWSC 538

Extension of time to file cross claim was refused as filing was out of time and not in proper form, cross-claim pleading was embarrassing and inconsistent with defendants' asserted position, and delay in filing was not adequately explained. Estoppel bar did not apply because prior tribunal dismissed cross claim on procedural grounds, not merits. Costs ordered to follow the event, as plaintiff was substantially successful.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceeding / Consequential Orders Following Principal Judgment; Determination of Motion to Extend Time for Cross Claim; Determination of Costs
Outcome
Defendants' amended motion to extend time for cross claim dismissed; plaintiff awarded costs after 3 December 2009; liberty to apply granted.
Legal Topics
['cross Claims' 'estoppel' 'costs' 'extension of Time' 'building Contract Disputes']
['civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['cross Claims' 'estoppel' 'costs' 'extension of Time' 'building Contract Disputes']

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 Proceeding / Consequential Orders Following Principal Judgment; Determination of Motion to Extend Time for Cross Claim; Determination of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should extend time to allow filing of proposed cross claim' 'Whether prosecution of cross claim is barred by Anshun estoppel' 'Whether costs should follow the event']

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time to file cross claim was refused as filing was out of time and not in proper form, cross-claim pleading was embarrassing and inconsistent with defendants' asserted position, and delay in filing was not adequately explained. Estoppel bar did not apply because prior tribunal dismissed cross claim on procedural grounds, not merits. Costs ordered to follow the event, as plaintiff was substantially successful.

Court Disposition

Defendants' amended motion to extend time for cross claim dismissed; plaintiff awarded costs after 3 December 2009; liberty to apply granted.

Orders

  • ["Dismiss the defendant's amended motion of 15 December 2009." "Order the defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings after 3 December 2009." 'Grant liberty to apply.']