Prime Capital Securities Pty Ltd v Sydney Commercial and Governmental Floor and Wall Tiling Services Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 120

Prime Capital Securities Pty Ltd v Sydney Commercial and Governmental Floor and Wall Tiling Services Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 120

The Defence and Cross-Claim filed by the Second Defendant do not comply with the Rules of Court and do not disclose any valid defence to the claim or cause of action against the Cross-Defendants, and should accordingly be struck out; however, unrepresented Defendants are given the opportunity to re-plead by a specified date.

Parties
Plaintiff/first Cross Defendant: Prime Capital Securities Pty Ltd; First Defendant: Sydney Commercial and Governmental Floor and Wall Tiling Services Pty Ltd; Second Defendant/cross Claimant: Joseph John Sara; Third Defendant: Assaf James Sara; Second Cross Defendant: Gadens Lawyers Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Possession of Land and Recovery of Debt / Interlocutory/procedural Ruling
Outcome
Defence and Cross-Claim struck out with leave to re-plead
Legal Topics
Possession of Land, Form of Defence, Striking Out Pleadings, Leave to Re Plead
Real Property Possession of Land Form of Defence Striking Out Pleadings Leave to Re Plead

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prime Capital Securities Pty Ltd

Plaintiff/first Cross Defendant

Sydney Commercial and Governmental Floor and Wall Tiling Services Pty Ltd

First Defendant

Joseph John Sara

Second Defendant/cross Claimant

Assaf James Sara

Third Defendant

Gadens Lawyers Pty Ltd

Second Cross Defendant

Procedural Posture

Possession of Land and Recovery of Debt / Interlocutory/procedural Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defence and Cross-Claim filed disclosed any defence or cause of action
  2. 2 Whether pleadings should be struck out with leave to re-plead

Ratio Decidendi

The Defence and Cross-Claim filed by the Second Defendant do not comply with the Rules of Court and do not disclose any valid defence to the claim or cause of action against the Cross-Defendants, and should accordingly be struck out; however, unrepresented Defendants are given the opportunity to re-plead by a specified date.

Court Disposition

Defence and Cross-Claim struck out with leave to re-plead

Orders

  • Defence and Cross-Claim of Second Defendant filed 16 December 2015 struck out.
  • Any further defences and cross-claims to be served by 2 March 2016.