Damm v Coastwide Site Services Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 1361

Damm v Coastwide Site Services Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 1361

The consent judgment in favour of Leightons was set aside because, although there was no irregularity or bad faith by Leightons, the interests of justice under r 36.16(3A) UCPR required that Hauv's Rigging be given a fair opportunity to pursue its arguable cross-claim against Leightons, subject to provision of security for costs. The timely motion by Hauv's Rigging and the balancing of parties' interests favoured allowing the cross-claim to proceed. Coastwide's later application was dismissed as out of time and because it failed to take steps to protect its interests.

Parties
Plaintiff: Nga Marcus Damm; First Defendant: Coastwide Site Services Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd; Third Defendant: Hauv's Rigging Pty Ltd; Fourth Defendant: Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedural Rulings / Interlocutory Application to Set Aside Consent Judgment
Outcome
Consent judgment in favour of Leightons set aside. Hauv's Rigging to provide security for costs. Coastwide's motion dismissed. Costs as detailed in orders.
Legal Topics
Consent Judgment, Setting Aside Judgment, Procedural Fairness, Contribution/indemnity Between Defendants
Civil Procedure Consent Judgment Setting Aside Judgment Procedural Fairness Contribution/indemnity Between Defendants

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 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nga Marcus Damm

Plaintiff

Coastwide Site Services Pty Ltd

First Defendant

Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd

Second Defendant

Hauv's Rigging Pty Ltd

Third Defendant

Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedural Rulings / Interlocutory Application to Set Aside Consent Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the consent judgment in favour of Leightons should be set aside to allow cross-claims by Hauv's Rigging and Coastwide
  2. 2 Whether the judgment was entered irregularly, illegally, or against good faith under r 36.15 UCPR
  3. 3 Whether judgment should be set aside as entered in the absence of a party (r 36.16(2)(b) UCPR)

Ratio Decidendi

The consent judgment in favour of Leightons was set aside because, although there was no irregularity or bad faith by Leightons, the interests of justice under r 36.16(3A) UCPR required that Hauv's Rigging be given a fair opportunity to pursue its arguable cross-claim against Leightons, subject to provision of security for costs. The timely motion by Hauv's Rigging and the balancing of parties' interests favoured allowing the cross-claim to proceed. Coastwide's later application was dismissed as out of time and because it failed to take steps to protect its interests.

Court Disposition

Consent judgment in favour of Leightons set aside. Hauv's Rigging to provide security for costs. Coastwide's motion dismissed. Costs as detailed in orders.

Orders

  • The consent judgment entered on 6 May 2016 in favour of Leightons with respect to the plaintiff's claim is set aside.
  • The consent judgment dated 6 May 2016 between the plaintiff and Leightons not be entered until further order of the Court.