NWC Finance Pty Ltd v Borsellino [2015] NSWSC 1702

NWC Finance Pty Ltd v Borsellino [2015] NSWSC 1702

Because the Cross-Claim against the solicitor involved evidence significant to the First Defendant's defence and cross-claim and separate hearings would be undesirable if avoidable, that Cross-Claim should proceed with the main proceedings. By contrast, the finance broker was peripheral, had not been served, and severance was not resisted, so the Cross-Claim against Alex Assaf should be heard separately from and after the Plaintiff's claim and the Cross-Claim involving Ghassan Dib.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Possession of Land Proceedings / Notice of Motion Filed 27 October 2015 for Separate Determination of Cross Claim
Outcome
The Plaintiff's application was allowed in part; the Cross-Claim against Alex Assaf was ordered to be heard separately and after the main claim and the Cross-Claim against Ghassan Dib, while the Cross-Claim against Ghassan Dib was to proceed with the main proceedings.
Legal Topics
['possession of Land' 'separate Determination of Cross Claims' 'service of Cross Defendants' 'vacating Hearing Dates']
['real Property' 'civil Procedure'] ['possession of Land' 'separate Determination of Cross Claims' 'service of Cross Defendants' 'vacating Hearing Dates']

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

Possession of Land Proceedings / Notice of Motion Filed 27 October 2015 for Separate Determination of Cross Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Cross-Claim brought by the First Defendant against her solicitor and finance broker should be determined separately from the proceedings on the Statement of Claim.' 'Whether the Cross-Claim against the finance broker, who had not been served and whose position was peripheral, should be severed from the main proceedings and the Cross-Claim against the solicitor.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Cross-Claim against the solicitor involved evidence significant to the First Defendant's defence and cross-claim and separate hearings would be undesirable if avoidable, that Cross-Claim should proceed with the main proceedings. By contrast, the finance broker was peripheral, had not been served, and severance was not resisted, so the Cross-Claim against Alex Assaf should be heard separately from and after the Plaintiff's claim and the Cross-Claim involving Ghassan Dib.

Court Disposition

The Plaintiff's application was allowed in part; the Cross-Claim against Alex Assaf was ordered to be heard separately and after the main claim and the Cross-Claim against Ghassan Dib, while the Cross-Claim against Ghassan Dib was to proceed with the main proceedings.

Orders

  • ['The Cross-Claim against Alex Assaf, the third Cross-Defendant, is to be heard separately from and after the claim made by the Plaintiff against the First Defendant and the Cross-Claim against the First and Second Cross-Defendants.' 'The parties are to approach the Listing Manager to obtain a hearing date, such...