Ultimate Media Group Pty Ltd v Adframe Australia Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 538

Ultimate Media Group Pty Ltd v Adframe Australia Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 538

The interlocutory process was dismissed because, except for the conceded s 233 claim, the defendants had not demonstrated with the clarity required for summary dismissal that the plaintiff's general law or s 461 claims were invalid or that the Court lacked jurisdiction. Part 5 r 8(b) was inapposite, and a Part 15 r 26 strike-out application was inappropriate in proceedings 3629 of 2004 because no statement of claim was on that file.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Equity Division Proceedings; Interlocutory Process Seeking Summary Termination of Proceedings 3629 of 2004 / Dismissal of Interlocutory Process Before Trial
Outcome
Application for summary dismissal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['summary Dismissal' 'originating Process' 'standing Under Corporations Act 2001 (cth) Ss 233 and 461' 'jurisdiction' 'overriding Purpose' 'pleadings']
['civil Procedure' 'corporations Law' 'equity'] ['summary Dismissal' 'originating Process' 'standing Under Corporations Act 2001 (cth) Ss 233 and 461' 'jurisdiction' 'overriding Purpose' 'pleadings']

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

Equity Division Proceedings; Interlocutory Process Seeking Summary Termination of Proceedings 3629 of 2004 / Dismissal of Interlocutory Process Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether proceedings 3629 of 2004 should be summarily dismissed under Part 13 r 5 of the Supreme Court Rules 1970.' 'Whether the originating process should be set aside or the Court should declare no jurisdiction under Part 11 r 8(1)(a) or Part 11 r 8(1)(h) of the Supreme Court Rules 1970.' 'Whether Part 5 r 8(b) of the Supreme Court Rules 1970 supported dismissal at the hearing.' 'Whether an application to strike out a statement of claim under Part 15 r 26 of the Supreme Court Rules 1970 could be pursued in proceedings 3629 of 2004 when no statement of claim was on that file.']

Ratio Decidendi

The interlocutory process was dismissed because, except for the conceded s 233 claim, the defendants had not demonstrated with the clarity required for summary dismissal that the plaintiff's general law or s 461 claims were invalid or that the Court lacked jurisdiction. Part 5 r 8(b) was inapposite, and a Part 15 r 26 strike-out application was inappropriate in proceedings 3629 of 2004 because no statement of claim was on that file.

Court Disposition

Application for summary dismissal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The interlocutory process will be dismissed.']