Page v McKensey & Ors [2003] NSWSC 759

Page v McKensey & Ors [2003] NSWSC 759

The appeal is dismissed because the central issues have already been finally determined in earlier proceedings to which the appellant is treated as privy; the proposed pleadings do not disclose a reasonable cause of action; no sufficient new evidence of fraud exists to justify setting aside the prior judgment; and the exercise of the Master's discretion was not shown to be erroneous.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 September 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Decision of Master Refusing Leave to File Further Amended Statement of Claim, Striking Out Amended Statement of Claim, and Dismissing Proceedings
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['res Judicata' 'estoppel' 'abuse of Process' 'fraud' 'breach of Fiduciary Duty' 'partnership Dissolution' 'misrepresentation' 'limitation of Actions']
['procedure' 'equity' 'partnership Law'] ['res Judicata' 'estoppel' 'abuse of Process' 'fraud' 'breach of Fiduciary Duty' 'partnership Dissolution' 'misrepresentation' 'limitation of Actions']

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

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Decision of Master Refusing Leave to File Further Amended Statement of Claim, Striking Out Amended Statement of Claim, and Dismissing Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellant is precluded by res judicata or estoppel from re-litigating issues decided in prior partnership litigation' 'Whether the proceedings are an abuse of process' 'Whether there was a breach of fiduciary duty or obligation under Partnership Act 1892, s 28' 'Whether there was misrepresentation or misleading and deceptive conduct actionable under the Fair Trading Act 1987' 'Whether fraud sufficient to set aside a previous judgment has been pleaded and substantiated' 'Whether leave should have been granted to amend or replead']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the central issues have already been finally determined in earlier proceedings to which the appellant is treated as privy; the proposed pleadings do not disclose a reasonable cause of action; no sufficient new evidence of fraud exists to justify setting aside the prior judgment; and the exercise of the Master's discretion was not shown to be erroneous.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed from the decision of Master McLaughlin.' 'Parties to be heard on costs.']