Uber BV v Howarth [2016] NSWSC 977

Uber BV v Howarth [2016] NSWSC 977

Mr Howarth had been given repeated opportunities to reframe his proposed amended cross-claim but failed to propound one disclosing an arguable cause of action. Further delay by ordering mediation was not justified, and any negotiations could occur against the background of a fixed hearing date. Because Uber succeeded on its notice of motion and costs ordinarily follow the event, Mr Howarth was ordered to pay Uber's costs of that motion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings Concerning a Struck Out Cross Claim and Consequential Interlocutory Orders / Notice of Motion After Defendant's Cross Claim Was Struck Out; Application for Mediation; Referral for Fixing of Hearing Date
Outcome
Mr Howarth's application for mediation was dismissed; Uber's application to have the proceedings referred for the fixing of a hearing date was granted; Mr Howarth was ordered to pay Uber's costs of the notice of motion filed 8 February 2016.
Legal Topics
['cross Claim' 'amended Pleading' 'mediation' 'costs' 'case Management' 'fixing of Hearing Date']
['civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['cross Claim' 'amended Pleading' 'mediation' 'costs' 'case Management' 'fixing of Hearing Date']

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 Concerning a Struck Out Cross Claim and Consequential Interlocutory Orders / Notice of Motion After Defendant's Cross Claim Was Struck Out; Application for Mediation; Referral for Fixing of Hearing Date

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mr Howarth should be given further time or a mediation referral instead of the matter being fixed for hearing.' 'Whether the proceedings should be referred to the Registrar for the fixing of a hearing date.' "Whether Mr Howarth should pay Uber's costs of the notice of motion filed 8 February 2016."]

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Howarth had been given repeated opportunities to reframe his proposed amended cross-claim but failed to propound one disclosing an arguable cause of action. Further delay by ordering mediation was not justified, and any negotiations could occur against the background of a fixed hearing date. Because Uber succeeded on its notice of motion and costs ordinarily follow the event, Mr Howarth was ordered to pay Uber's costs of that motion.

Court Disposition

Mr Howarth's application for mediation was dismissed; Uber's application to have the proceedings referred for the fixing of a hearing date was granted; Mr Howarth was ordered to pay Uber's costs of the notice of motion filed 8 February 2016.

Orders

  • ["The defendant pay the plaintiffs' costs of their notice of motion filed 8 February 2016." "The proceedings are stood over to the Registrar's list on Wednesday 20 July 2016 for the fixing of a hearing date."]