United Rural v Lopmand [2002] NSWSC 441

United Rural v Lopmand [2002] NSWSC 441

The application to re-open is granted due to the possibility that estoppel may preclude the defendants from litigating key issues in future proceedings if determined at this stage; justice demands all reasonably arguable matters be ventilated in a single proceeding.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Trial Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application to re-open granted
Legal Topics
['application to Re Open Hearing' 'amendment of Defence' 'cross Claims' 'estoppel']
['procedure'] ['application to Re Open Hearing' 'amendment of Defence' 'cross Claims' 'estoppel']

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

Civil / Post Trial Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether defendants should be allowed to re-open their case and file an amended defence and cross-claims after trial hearing concluded' 'Whether public policy and estoppel principles prevent piecemeal litigation of arguable matters']

Ratio Decidendi

The application to re-open is granted due to the possibility that estoppel may preclude the defendants from litigating key issues in future proceedings if determined at this stage; justice demands all reasonably arguable matters be ventilated in a single proceeding.

Court Disposition

Application to re-open granted

Orders

  • ['Defendants granted leave to file amended defence and cross-claims on terms as to costs.' 'Defendants to pay all costs of the plaintiff thrown away by reason of re-opening on an indemnity basis, payable forthwith.' "Defendants' leave to file amended defence and cross-claims not exercisable until costs paid."...