Credit Solutions Group Pty Ltd v Obelisk Ventures Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2019] NSWSC 488

Credit Solutions Group Pty Ltd v Obelisk Ventures Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2019] NSWSC 488

Defendants had been afforded multiple opportunities to properly plead their case but failed to comply with court orders or provide adequate explanation for their continuous delays. The further amended defence could be permitted (with certain exclusions), but leave to file the proposed cross-claim was refused due to procedural, substantive, and prejudice concerns. Consequently, the old defence was struck out, and costs ordered against the defendants.

Parties
Plaintiff: Credit Solutions Group Pty Ltd; First Defendant: Obelisk Ventures Pty Limited; Second Defendant: International Events & Speakers Pty Ltd; Third Defendant: Maxwell Daniel Markson; Fourth Defendant: Westpac Banking Corporation Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Motions Addressing Amendments to Pleadings and Striking Out Defences
Outcome
Defence struck out; limited leave granted to file further amended defence; leave to file cross-claim refused; costs ordered against defendants.
Legal Topics
Pleadings, Possession List, Amended Defence, Cross Claim, Delay, Leave to File
Civil Procedure Pleadings Possession List Amended Defence Cross Claim Delay Leave to File

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Credit Solutions Group Pty Ltd

Plaintiff

Obelisk Ventures Pty Limited

First Defendant

International Events & Speakers Pty Ltd

Second Defendant

Maxwell Daniel Markson

Third Defendant

Westpac Banking Corporation Limited

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Motions Addressing Amendments to Pleadings and Striking Out Defences

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants should be granted leave to file a further amended defence and cross-claim.
  2. 2 Whether the previously filed defence should be struck out for non-compliance and pleading deficiencies.
  3. 3 Whether the condition requiring payment of the principal sum before proceeding should be waived.

Ratio Decidendi

Defendants had been afforded multiple opportunities to properly plead their case but failed to comply with court orders or provide adequate explanation for their continuous delays. The further amended defence could be permitted (with certain exclusions), but leave to file the proposed cross-claim was refused due to procedural, substantive, and prejudice concerns. Consequently, the old defence was struck out, and costs ordered against the defendants.

Court Disposition

Defence struck out; limited leave granted to file further amended defence; leave to file cross-claim refused; costs ordered against defendants.

Orders

  • The defence filed by the first, second, and third defendants on 2 October 2018 is struck out.
  • The defendants are to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the motion.