OXS Pty Ltd v Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority and Minister for Planning and Environment [2014] NSWSC 1284

OXS Pty Ltd v Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority and Minister for Planning and Environment [2014] NSWSC 1284

The Court made the consent order dismissing all claims for relief except specified remaining relief and damages claims because such an order could dispose of determined aspects of the claim while reserving unresolved matters. The Court refused the requested declarations because one concerned an uncontested and undetermined matter and the others were general, lacked utility, and would merely be prefatory to damages. The Court declined to include paragraph 24 in the orders because costs as between OXS and the Minister had already been determined, while any costs issue as between OXS and SHFA remained for further submissions and any reopening of the Minister costs order required a proper...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Common Law Proceedings; Consequential Orders / Directions Hearing as to Orders Following Primary Judgment
Outcome
Orders made substantially by consent as between OXS and SHFA; requested declarations were refused; proceedings relisted for argument as to costs and directions as to next steps.
Legal Topics
['consequential Orders' 'declarations' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'costs' 'damages']
['civil Procedure' 'consumer Law' 'retail Leases'] ['consequential Orders' 'declarations' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'costs' 'damages']

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

Common Law Proceedings; Consequential Orders / Directions Hearing as to Orders Following Primary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether orders should be made dismissing all claims for relief in the Statement of Claim except specified remaining claims and damages claims.' 'Whether the Court should make declarations sought by OXS that SHFA carried on business in New South Wales and engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct.' "Whether paragraph 24 of the Statement of Claim, seeking an order that SHFA pay the Minister's costs if OXS's claims against the Minister were unsuccessful, should be stood over for further argument."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court made the consent order dismissing all claims for relief except specified remaining relief and damages claims because such an order could dispose of determined aspects of the claim while reserving unresolved matters. The Court refused the requested declarations because one concerned an uncontested and undetermined matter and the others were general, lacked utility, and would merely be prefatory to damages. The Court declined to include paragraph 24 in the orders because costs as between OXS and the Minister had already been determined, while any costs issue as between OXS and SHFA remained for further submissions and any reopening of the Minister costs order required a proper...

Court Disposition

Orders made substantially by consent as between OXS and SHFA; requested declarations were refused; proceedings relisted for argument as to costs and directions as to next steps.

Orders

  • ['All claims of relief within the Statement of Claim are dismissed except for the relief claimed in paragraphs 21, 22, 23 and 25 and damages under paragraphs 11 and 15 (but only under s 62D of the Retail Leases Act 1994 (NSW)) in a sum less than $14,038.' 'The matter was relisted for argument as to costs and...