Collendina Pty Limited & Ors v Murray Darling Basin Commission & Ors [2007] NSWSC 1053

Collendina Pty Limited & Ors v Murray Darling Basin Commission & Ors [2007] NSWSC 1053

The plaintiffs have demonstrated sufficient, albeit limited, ability to prosecute the proceedings and there is no serious risk to a fair determination arising from the delay; accordingly, the proceedings should not be dismissed at this stage and the matter should be adjourned for ongoing directions and scrutiny.

Parties
Plaintiff: Collendina Pty Limited; Plaintiff: Rohan Geoffrey Cranney; Plaintiff: David Kenneth Cranney; Plaintiff: Cranney Properties Pty Limited; Plaintiff: Wongala Holdings Pty Limited; Defendant: Murray Darling Basin Commission; Defendant: John Lovering; Defendant: Geoff Gorrie; Defendant: Phillip Toyne; Defendant: Kevin Sheridan; Defendant: Michael Taylor; Defendant: David Stringer; Defendant: Edward Phipps; Defendant: Dennis Mutton
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 September 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application / Directions Hearing
Outcome
Proceedings not dismissed; matter adjourned for directions; costs order against plaintiffs for present application.
Legal Topics
Show Cause, Dismissal for Want of Due Despatch, Failure to File Evidence, Compliance With Court Orders, Extension of Time
Practice and Procedure Show Cause Dismissal for Want of Due Despatch Failure to File Evidence Compliance With Court Orders Extension of Time

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Collendina Pty Limited

Plaintiff

Rohan Geoffrey Cranney

Plaintiff

David Kenneth Cranney

Plaintiff

Cranney Properties Pty Limited

Plaintiff

Wongala Holdings Pty Limited

Plaintiff

Murray Darling Basin Commission

Defendant

John Lovering

Defendant

Geoff Gorrie

Defendant

Phillip Toyne

Defendant

Kevin Sheridan

Defendant

Michael Taylor

Defendant

David Stringer

Defendant

Edward Phipps

Defendant

Dennis Mutton

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application / Directions Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proceedings should be dismissed for want of due despatch due to plaintiffs' failure to file evidence and comply with orders
  2. 2 Whether plaintiffs have demonstrated ability to prosecute the proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs have demonstrated sufficient, albeit limited, ability to prosecute the proceedings and there is no serious risk to a fair determination arising from the delay; accordingly, the proceedings should not be dismissed at this stage and the matter should be adjourned for ongoing directions and scrutiny.

Court Disposition

Proceedings not dismissed; matter adjourned for directions; costs order against plaintiffs for present application.

Orders

  • Proceedings adjourned for directions before Harrison J at 9.30am on 27 September 2007.
  • Plaintiffs to pay defendants’ costs of the application before Harrison J.