Kira Holdings Pty Ltd v Daquino [2010] NSWSC 201

Kira Holdings Pty Ltd v Daquino [2010] NSWSC 201

Leave to file the proposed cross-claim was refused because the application was very belated, the proposed claims were unparticularised, the evidence did not identify a misrepresentation or breach of fiduciary duty or show significant prospects of success, the summons did not offer to do equity by refunding payments received under the 1992 arrangements, and granting leave would jeopardise the existing hearing date in part-heard proceedings. The existence of separate proceedings did not justify a different outcome.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Ruling; Application for Leave to File a Cross Summons or Cross Claim / Part Heard Final Hearing; Defendant's Motion Filed 26 February 2010 for Leave to File a Cross Summons
Outcome
Leave to file cross-claim refused; motion dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['amendment' 'leave to File Cross Claim' 'cross Summons' 'part Heard Proceedings' 'caveat Removal' 'misrepresentation' 'breach of Fiduciary Duty' 'contracts Review Act']
['civil Procedure' 'equity' 'property'] ['amendment' 'leave to File Cross Claim' 'cross Summons' 'part Heard Proceedings' 'caveat Removal' 'misrepresentation' 'breach of Fiduciary Duty' 'contracts Review Act']

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

Procedural and Other Ruling; Application for Leave to File a Cross Summons or Cross Claim / Part Heard Final Hearing; Defendant's Motion Filed 26 February 2010 for Leave to File a Cross Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant should be granted leave under UCPR 9.1 to file a cross-summons in part-heard proceedings.' 'Whether the proposed cross-claim was too belated and insufficiently particularised.' 'Whether granting leave would jeopardise the existing hearing date.' 'Whether there was sufficient reason to suppose that the proposed cross-claim had substance or significant prospects of success.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to file the proposed cross-claim was refused because the application was very belated, the proposed claims were unparticularised, the evidence did not identify a misrepresentation or breach of fiduciary duty or show significant prospects of success, the summons did not offer to do equity by refunding payments received under the 1992 arrangements, and granting leave would jeopardise the existing hearing date in part-heard proceedings. The existence of separate proceedings did not justify a different outcome.

Court Disposition

Leave to file cross-claim refused; motion dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Leave to file the proposed cross-claim refused.' 'The motion is dismissed with costs.']