Ranclose Investments Pty Ltd v Leda Management Services Pty Ltd [2021] NSWDC 210

Ranclose Investments Pty Ltd v Leda Management Services Pty Ltd [2021] NSWDC 210

Joinder of Leda Holdings as a defendant was granted because there was sufficient evidence to support a plausible case that it was an undisclosed principal to the service agreement; Ranclose was granted leave to amend its pleading, while Mr Ell was not joined as a defendant personally as no substantive case was pleaded against him. Security for costs was ordered against Ranclose Investments as the jurisdictional threshold of impecuniosity was met and no evidence substantiated that security would stifle the pursuit of the claim. Security for costs was declined against Leda Management on its Cross-Claim as the Cross-Claim was essentially defensive and arose from the same transaction as the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory (rulings on Joinder, Amendment of Pleadings, and Security for Costs)
Outcome
Joinder of Leda Holdings as second defendant and grant of leave to amend Statement of Claim (except as to Mr Ell personally); orders for Ranclose Investments to provide security for costs in specified tranches; cross-defendant's application for security for costs dismissed.
Legal Topics
['joinder of Parties' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'security for Costs' 'undisclosed Principal' 'impecuniosity' 'promissory Estoppel' 'quantum Meruit']
['civil Procedure' 'commercial Law'] ['joinder of Parties' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'security for Costs' 'undisclosed Principal' 'impecuniosity' 'promissory Estoppel' 'quantum Meruit']

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 / Interlocutory (rulings on Joinder, Amendment of Pleadings, and Security for Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Leda Holdings Pty Ltd should be joined as a defendant under r 6.24 of the UCPR as an undisclosed principal;' 'Whether Ranclose Investments Pty Ltd should be granted leave to amend its Statement of Claim to include new causes of action and join additional defendants;' 'Whether security for costs should be ordered against Ranclose Investments;' 'Whether security for costs should be ordered against Leda Management Services Pty Ltd as cross-claimant;']

Ratio Decidendi

Joinder of Leda Holdings as a defendant was granted because there was sufficient evidence to support a plausible case that it was an undisclosed principal to the service agreement; Ranclose was granted leave to amend its pleading, while Mr Ell was not joined as a defendant personally as no substantive case was pleaded against him. Security for costs was ordered against Ranclose Investments as the jurisdictional threshold of impecuniosity was met and no evidence substantiated that security would stifle the pursuit of the claim. Security for costs was declined against Leda Management on its Cross-Claim as the Cross-Claim was essentially defensive and arose from the same transaction as the...

Court Disposition

Joinder of Leda Holdings as second defendant and grant of leave to amend Statement of Claim (except as to Mr Ell personally); orders for Ranclose Investments to provide security for costs in specified tranches; cross-defendant's application for security for costs dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leda Holdings Pty Ltd is joined as second defendant.' 'Leave is granted to file and serve a modified Amended Statement of Claim as directed.' "Plaintiff's application to amend is otherwise costs in the cause, but plaintiff pays costs thrown away." "Plaintiff's application for joinder against Leda Holdings: costs...