Trilogy Funds Management Limited v Sullivan [2013] FCA 185

Trilogy Funds Management Limited v Sullivan [2013] FCA 185

The interlocutory application was dismissed because Mr McCormick was unable to formulate any preliminary question arising from the cross-claim that could be determined separately so as to narrow, resolve, or advance the dispute. The issues raised by Trilogy's defence to the cross-claim, including alleged breaches of duty and Mr McCormick's involvement, required substantial factual determination and could not be bypassed by granting the relief sought.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceeding Concerning Alleged Contraventions of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth) and a Cross Claim for Indemnity for Legal Costs / Interlocutory Application for Separate Trial of the Cross Claim
Outcome
Interlocutory application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['responsible Entity of Registered Managed Investment Scheme' 'section 601 FS Transfer of Rights, Obligations and Liabilities' 'deed of Indemnity for Legal Costs' 'separate Trial or Preliminary Determination' 'cross Claim']
['corporations Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['responsible Entity of Registered Managed Investment Scheme' 'section 601 FS Transfer of Rights, Obligations and Liabilities' 'deed of Indemnity for Legal Costs' 'separate Trial or Preliminary Determination' 'cross Claim']

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 Proceeding Concerning Alleged Contraventions of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth) and a Cross Claim for Indemnity for Legal Costs / Interlocutory Application for Separate Trial of the Cross Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Mr McCormick's cross-claim for indemnity under the Deed of Indemnity should be tried separately before the main proceeding." 'Whether a preliminary question could be formulated that would advance or narrow the dispute between Mr McCormick and Trilogy.' "Whether the issues raised by the cross-claim were separable from Trilogy's allegations concerning City Pacific's and Mr McCormick's alleged breaches of duty."]

Ratio Decidendi

The interlocutory application was dismissed because Mr McCormick was unable to formulate any preliminary question arising from the cross-claim that could be determined separately so as to narrow, resolve, or advance the dispute. The issues raised by Trilogy's defence to the cross-claim, including alleged breaches of duty and Mr McCormick's involvement, required substantial factual determination and could not be bypassed by granting the relief sought.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The interlocutory application filed on 17 September 2012 be dismissed.' 'The applicant on that application pay the costs of the respondent to that application.' 'The costs in Order 2 above would not include the costs of furnishing the particulars dated 12 February 2013.']