Starwhist Pty Limited v Tonge [2017] NSWSC 1625

The application to vacate the hearing was refused as the trial could proceed despite uncertainty as to trustee status, and the trial judge could deal with outstanding applications at the hearing.

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 24 November 2017
Procedural Posture: Notice of Motion / Interlocutory Application to Vacate Hearing Date
Outcome: Application to vacate the hearing refused; costs ordered against Mr Tonge in favour of the plaintiff.
Legal Topics: ['application to Vacate Hearing Date' 'joinder of Party' 'trustee Status']

['procedure'] ['application to Vacate Hearing Date' 'joinder of Party' 'trustee Status']

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

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Interlocutory Application to Vacate Hearing Date

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether the hearing should be vacated due to uncertainty regarding the trustee of the unit trust' 'Whether Mr Blair should be joined as a party to the proceedings']

Ratio Decidendi

The application to vacate the hearing was refused as the trial could proceed despite uncertainty as to trustee status, and the trial judge could deal with outstanding applications at the hearing.

Court Disposition

Application to vacate the hearing refused; costs ordered against Mr Tonge in favour of the plaintiff.

Orders

['The application to have the hearing vacated is refused.' 'Mr Tonge is ordered to pay the costs of the motion.']

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.