Trieu v ROOK CMIT Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 122

Trieu v ROOK CMIT Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 122

Leave to amend the defence and an extension of time to file the cross claim were required by the dictates of justice because Mr Trieu's statement of claim did not provide required particulars, the defendants' applications were triggered by particulars first provided in his evidence, and the amendments and cross claim would allow the real issues between the parties to be determined without demonstrated prejudice to Mr Trieu. Summary judgment was refused because the defendants' case could not be characterised as having no reasonable defence, the proceedings involved disputed facts and credit issues, and the Court could not reach the high degree of certainty required to enter summary judgment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Common Law Proceedings Concerning Possession of Leased Property and Damages / Interlocutory Motions for Summary Judgment, Leave to Amend Defence, and Extension of Time to File Cross Claim
Outcome
Mr Trieu's motion for summary judgment was dismissed; the defendants were granted leave to file the proposed amended defence and an extension of time to file and serve the proposed cross claim.
Legal Topics
['summary Judgment' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'extension of Time' 'cross Claims' 'particulars' 'overriding Purpose']
['civil Procedure' 'property Law' 'leases'] ['summary Judgment' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'extension of Time' 'cross Claims' 'particulars' 'overriding Purpose']

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 Concerning Possession of Leased Property and Damages / Interlocutory Motions for Summary Judgment, Leave to Amend Defence, and Extension of Time to File Cross Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether summary judgment should be entered in favour of Mr Trieu.' 'Whether the defendants should have leave to file the proposed amended defence.' 'Whether time should be extended for the defendants to file and serve the proposed cross claim.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend the defence and an extension of time to file the cross claim were required by the dictates of justice because Mr Trieu's statement of claim did not provide required particulars, the defendants' applications were triggered by particulars first provided in his evidence, and the amendments and cross claim would allow the real issues between the parties to be determined without demonstrated prejudice to Mr Trieu. Summary judgment was refused because the defendants' case could not be characterised as having no reasonable defence, the proceedings involved disputed facts and credit issues, and the Court could not reach the high degree of certainty required to enter summary judgment.

Court Disposition

Mr Trieu's motion for summary judgment was dismissed; the defendants were granted leave to file the proposed amended defence and an extension of time to file and serve the proposed cross claim.

Orders

  • ["Mr Trieu's motion be dismissed." 'The defendants have leave to file the proposed amended defence.' 'Time to file and serve the proposed cross claim is extended until 4pm on 21 February 2024.' 'The parties should approach by 4pm on 6 March 2024, either with proposed costs orders which will then be entered, or with...