Dynamic Press Investments v Storage Plus Group Manly & Anor [2007] NSWSC 430

Dynamic Press Investments v Storage Plus Group Manly & Anor [2007] NSWSC 430

The plaintiff's application for strike out, summary judgment, and security for costs was refused because the defendants' cross-claims and defences were found to be arguable and not hopeless. Both defendants/cross-claimants were impecunious, and an order for security for costs would stultify their ability to defend and pursue their claims. The motion for leave to file an amended cross-claim was allowed, the notices to produce were set aside, and procedural directions were given for the progress of the matter.

Parties
Plaintiff/cross Defendant: Dynamic Press Investments Pty Ltd; First Defendant/first Cross Claimant: Storage Plus Group Manly Pty Ltd; Second Defendant/second Cross Claimant: Gregory Raymond Peters
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Judgment on Strike Out, Security for Costs, and Associated Procedural Motions
Outcome
Plaintiff's application dismissed; leave to amend cross-claim granted; procedural orders made; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Security for Costs, Cross Claims, Lease Disputes, Rectification, Summary Judgment, Mediation Orders
Contract Law Property Law Civil Procedure Strike Out Applications Security for Costs Cross Claims Lease Disputes Rectification +2 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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dynamic Press Investments Pty Ltd

Plaintiff/cross Defendant

Storage Plus Group Manly Pty Ltd

First Defendant/first Cross Claimant

Gregory Raymond Peters

Second Defendant/second Cross Claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Judgment on Strike Out, Security for Costs, and Associated Procedural Motions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defence and/or cross-claim should be struck out for want of prosecution
  2. 2 Whether judgment should be entered for the plaintiff for the sum claimed or in part thereof
  3. 3 Whether security for costs should be ordered against the defendants/cross-claimants

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's application for strike out, summary judgment, and security for costs was refused because the defendants' cross-claims and defences were found to be arguable and not hopeless. Both defendants/cross-claimants were impecunious, and an order for security for costs would stultify their ability to defend and pursue their claims. The motion for leave to file an amended cross-claim was allowed, the notices to produce were set aside, and procedural directions were given for the progress of the matter.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application dismissed; leave to amend cross-claim granted; procedural orders made; costs reserved.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's notice of motion filed 11 October 2006 is dismissed.
  • The defendants/cross claimants are to file and serve an amended cross-claim by 5.00pm on 27 April 2007.