Blashki v Utara [2003] NSWSC 210

Blashki v Utara [2003] NSWSC 210

The Court replaced the proposed broad order 4 with specific reservations and limited dismissal/judgment orders because there was substance in the plaintiff's concern that a broad judgment for the defendant might prejudice further consequential orders. The Court declined to order an immediate mechanism for quantification because the appropriate basis for quantification was not yet determined and such an order would be hypothetical and premature.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings / Further Debate as to the Form of Orders Consequent Upon the Substantive Judgment
Outcome
Proceedings adjourned for further consideration; questions of quantification and payment reserved; specified judgment, declaration, dismissal and liberty to apply orders made.
Legal Topics
['supreme Court Procedure' 'further Consideration' 'reservation of Questions' 'form of Orders' 'quantification and Payment']
['civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['supreme Court Procedure' 'further Consideration' 'reservation of Questions' 'form of Orders' 'quantification and Payment']

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

Equity Proceedings / Further Debate as to the Form of Orders Consequent Upon the Substantive Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the proposed order that otherwise judgment be entered for the defendant on the plaintiff's claims was too wide and might preclude further orders consequential on order 3." 'Whether the Court should immediately order a mechanism for determining further matters arising from order 3, including an inquiry before the Master or a reference under Part 72 of the Supreme Court Rules 1970.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court replaced the proposed broad order 4 with specific reservations and limited dismissal/judgment orders because there was substance in the plaintiff's concern that a broad judgment for the defendant might prejudice further consequential orders. The Court declined to order an immediate mechanism for quantification because the appropriate basis for quantification was not yet determined and such an order would be hypothetical and premature.

Court Disposition

Proceedings adjourned for further consideration; questions of quantification and payment reserved; specified judgment, declaration, dismissal and liberty to apply orders made.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $9,927.65 on the balance of his claim for moneys lent to the defendant.' 'Order that if the property known as 19 Courland Street, Five Dock ("the property") be sold by the defendant it be sold by public auction.' 'Declare that upon the satisfaction of the judgment in order...