Insightbox Pty Ltd v Jones Lang LaSalle (NSW) Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 1505

Insightbox Pty Ltd v Jones Lang LaSalle (NSW) Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 1505

The proceeding was dismissed as the statement of claim did not disclose any reasonable cause of action. The anti-sleeping prohibition was not unfair, the facts did not support claims for unconscionable conduct, discrimination, force majeure, or a trust, nor was there direct contractual liability stated against the first or third defendants. The overall claims were frivolous and vexatious given the circumstances and relief sought.

Parties
Plaintiff: Insightbox Pty Ltd; First Defendant: Jones Lang LaSalle (NSW) Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: Transport Asset Holding Entity of New South Wales; Third Defendant: Transport for NSW
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Procedural Ruling (summary Dismissal/strike Out) / Judgment After Hearing of Summary Dismissal/strike Out Application
Outcome
Proceedings dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Summary Dismissal, Strike Out of Proceedings, Unfair Contract Terms, Discrimination, Unconscionable Conduct, Licence/lease Disputes
Civil Procedure Summary Dismissal Strike Out of Proceedings Unfair Contract Terms Discrimination Unconscionable Conduct Licence/lease 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Insightbox Pty Ltd

Plaintiff

Jones Lang LaSalle (NSW) Pty Ltd

First Defendant

Transport Asset Holding Entity of New South Wales

Second Defendant

Transport for NSW

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Procedural Ruling (summary Dismissal/strike Out) / Judgment After Hearing of Summary Dismissal/strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proceedings disclose a reasonable cause of action
  2. 2 Whether proceedings are frivolous or vexatious
  3. 3 Whether an anti-sleeping clause is an unfair contract term

Ratio Decidendi

The proceeding was dismissed as the statement of claim did not disclose any reasonable cause of action. The anti-sleeping prohibition was not unfair, the facts did not support claims for unconscionable conduct, discrimination, force majeure, or a trust, nor was there direct contractual liability stated against the first or third defendants. The overall claims were frivolous and vexatious given the circumstances and relief sought.

Court Disposition

Proceedings dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The statement of claim be dismissed.
  • The plaintiff pay the defendants' costs of the proceedings.