Simply Technology Pty Ltd v Blair [2008] NSWSC 489

Simply Technology Pty Ltd v Blair [2008] NSWSC 489

The plaintiff's application for Mareva relief against the second cross-defendant was dismissed due to insufficient grounds: the caveat on the property and the second cross-defendant’s undertakings removed the necessity for interlocutory relief; furthermore, the plaintiff had no standing to seek a declaration that...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory; Notice of Motion for Mareva Relief; Application to Strike Out Cross Claim
Outcome
Plaintiff's notice of motion dismissed with costs; second cross-claim struck out with costs; leave to amend statement of claim permitted.
Legal Topics
['mareva Injunction' 'caveat' 'standing (locus Standi)' 'cross Claim Procedure']
['equity' 'civil Procedure'] ['mareva Injunction' 'caveat' 'standing (locus Standi)' 'cross Claim Procedure']

Source-derived case record

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

Civil / Interlocutory; Notice of Motion for Mareva Relief; Application to Strike Out Cross Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mareva relief should be granted against a third party (second cross-defendant)' 'Whether plaintiff has locus standi to seek a declaration that the second cross-defendant holds property on trust for the defendant' 'Appropriateness of cross-claim procedure by plaintiff']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's application for Mareva relief against the second cross-defendant was dismissed due to insufficient grounds: the caveat on the property and the second cross-defendant’s undertakings removed the necessity for interlocutory relief; furthermore, the plaintiff had no standing to seek a declaration that the second cross-defendant held the property on trust for Mr Blair, rendering the cross-claim improper.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's notice of motion dismissed with costs; second cross-claim struck out with costs; leave to amend statement of claim permitted.

Orders

  • ["Order that the plaintiff's notice of motion as amended on 18 April 2008 is dismissed with costs." 'Order that the second cross-claim is struck out with costs.' 'Plaintiff is given leave to amend the statement of claim to make a claim against the second cross-defendant, provided a draft is served by 6 June 2008.'...