Ryan Wealth Holdings Pty Ltd v L & V Tomkins Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 533

Ryan Wealth Holdings Pty Ltd v L & V Tomkins Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 533

The case was not appropriate for summary disposal or for striking out claims, as material facts regarding the existence of agreements, the date of repayment, and the possibility that the agreement was a deed were in dispute and insufficiently clear at this stage; thus, leave to re-plead was granted and motions otherwise dismissed.

Parties
Plaintiff: Ryan Wealth Holdings Pty Ltd; First Defendant: L & V Tomkins Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: Valerie Gladys Tomkins; Third Defendant: Andrew Bruce Tomkins; Fourth Defendant: Deborah Tomkins
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Strike Out Application / Interlocutory Application – Decision on Motions to Strike Out and for Separate Determination of Limitation Issue
Outcome
Motions to strike out and for separate determination dismissed. Leave granted to plaintiff to re-plead.
Legal Topics
Application to Strike Out Statement of Claim, Summary Disposal, Limitation of Actions, Loan Agreements, Security for Loans, Statute of Limitations, Leave to Re Plead
Civil Procedure Equity Application to Strike Out Statement of Claim Summary Disposal Limitation of Actions Loan Agreements Security for Loans Statute of Limitations +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ryan Wealth Holdings Pty Ltd

Plaintiff

L & V Tomkins Pty Ltd

First Defendant

Valerie Gladys Tomkins

Second Defendant

Andrew Bruce Tomkins

Third Defendant

Deborah Tomkins

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Strike Out Application / Interlocutory Application – Decision on Motions to Strike Out and for Separate Determination of Limitation Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff's claim is time-barred under the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether proceedings should be struck out under UCPR r 13.4
  3. 3 Whether the loan was pursuant to a deed (impacting limitation period)

Ratio Decidendi

The case was not appropriate for summary disposal or for striking out claims, as material facts regarding the existence of agreements, the date of repayment, and the possibility that the agreement was a deed were in dispute and insufficiently clear at this stage; thus, leave to re-plead was granted and motions otherwise dismissed.

Court Disposition

Motions to strike out and for separate determination dismissed. Leave granted to plaintiff to re-plead.

Orders

  • Grant leave to the plaintiff to re-plead its statement of claim in accordance with the observations made in these reasons.
  • Otherwise dismiss the two motions.