King v AG Australia Holdings Limited (formerly GIO Australia Holdings Limited) [2002] FCAFC 317

King v AG Australia Holdings Limited (formerly GIO Australia Holdings Limited) [2002] FCAFC 317

Although some criticisms of paragraphs 14 and 15 of the cross-claim may have substance, the cross-claim, particularly paragraphs 8 to 10, established a sufficient basis for Macquarie to be joined as a cross-respondent. Macquarie had not shown substantial prejudice if leave were refused, and the docket Judge could ensure that Macquarie had a full and fair opportunity to understand the case against it. Leave to appeal was therefore refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 October 2002
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Judgment Dismissing an Application to Strike Out a Cross Claim / Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Judgment' 'strike Out Application' 'cross Claim' 'joinder' 'hostile Takeover' 'part B Statement']
['civil Procedure' 'pleadings' 'representative Proceedings' 'corporations'] ['leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Judgment' 'strike Out Application' 'cross Claim' 'joinder' 'hostile Takeover' 'part B Statement']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Judgment Dismissing an Application to Strike Out a Cross Claim / Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to appeal from an interlocutory judgment involving matters of practice and procedure.' 'Whether the cross-claim against Macquarie provided a sufficient basis for Macquarie to be joined to the proceedings.' 'Whether Macquarie would sustain substantial prejudice if leave to appeal were refused.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although some criticisms of paragraphs 14 and 15 of the cross-claim may have substance, the cross-claim, particularly paragraphs 8 to 10, established a sufficient basis for Macquarie to be joined as a cross-respondent. Macquarie had not shown substantial prejudice if leave were refused, and the docket Judge could ensure that Macquarie had a full and fair opportunity to understand the case against it. Leave to appeal was therefore refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.' 'The applicant for leave to appeal pay the costs of the respondent for leave to appeal.']