Hazard Systems Pty Ltd v Car-Tech Services Pty Ltd (In liq) [2013] NSWCA 314

Hazard Systems Pty Ltd v Car-Tech Services Pty Ltd (In liq) [2013] NSWCA 314

Neither deed effected a legal assignment under s 12 of the Conveyancing Act 1919; Car-Tech retained legal title to the causes of action and could properly sue. CGU, as only an equitable assignee, needed to sue in Car-Tech's name; substitution of CGU as plaintiff was unnecessary and the relevant District Court orders should be set aside. Each party should bear its own costs due to reciprocal misconceptions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Interlocutory Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; District Court orders set aside; leave granted to amend statement of claim; each party to bear its own costs in this Court and for the notice of motion.
Legal Topics
['assignment of Choses in Action' 'standing to Sue' 'substitution of Parties' 'leave to Amend Statement of Claim']
['equity' 'civil Procedure'] ['assignment of Choses in Action' 'standing to Sue' 'substitution of Parties' 'leave to Amend Statement of Claim']

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

Civil Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Interlocutory Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether assignments to insurer complied with Conveyancing Act 1919, s 12' 'Whether assignment was absolute or equitable' 'Whether Car-Tech had standing to sue' 'Whether substitution of plaintiff was necessary']

Ratio Decidendi

Neither deed effected a legal assignment under s 12 of the Conveyancing Act 1919; Car-Tech retained legal title to the causes of action and could properly sue. CGU, as only an equitable assignee, needed to sue in Car-Tech's name; substitution of CGU as plaintiff was unnecessary and the relevant District Court orders should be set aside. Each party should bear its own costs due to reciprocal misconceptions.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; District Court orders set aside; leave granted to amend statement of claim; each party to bear its own costs in this Court and for the notice of motion.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal from interlocutory judgment in the District Court delivered on 17 August 2012.' 'Allow the appeal and set aside the orders made in the District Court on 17 August 2012.' 'Grant leave to plaintiffs in the District Court (Car-Tech and CGU) to amend the further amended statement of claim so as...