Wayne Lawrence & Anor v Frances Gunner [2014] NSWSC 121

Wayne Lawrence & Anor v Frances Gunner [2014] NSWSC 121

The defendant's review motion was dismissed because the challenged orders were case management timetabling orders made by a Registrar, the matters relied on had been put to the Registrar, there was no change of circumstances and no serious prejudice beyond delay was shown. The plaintiffs' motion was dismissed because the requested relief was premature until the proposed amended statement of claim defined the scope of the case and because the matters would require special fixing before a judge if pursued later.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure; Review of Registrar's Case Management Timetabling Orders / Interlocutory Notices of Motion Before Kunc J
Outcome
Notices of motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
["review of Registrar's Decision" 'case Management Orders' 'timetabling Orders' 'amendment of Statement of Claim' 'costs in the Cause']
['civil Procedure'] ["review of Registrar's Decision" 'case Management Orders' 'timetabling Orders' 'amendment of Statement of Claim' 'costs in the Cause']

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

Practice and Procedure; Review of Registrar's Case Management Timetabling Orders / Interlocutory Notices of Motion Before Kunc J

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendant's motion to review and set aside parts of the Registrar's case management timetable should be granted." "Whether the plaintiffs' motion for joinder, referral to pro bono assistance, capping of legal fees and asset preservation orders should be determined at this stage." "What costs order should be made on the defendant's motion."]

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's review motion was dismissed because the challenged orders were case management timetabling orders made by a Registrar, the matters relied on had been put to the Registrar, there was no change of circumstances and no serious prejudice beyond delay was shown. The plaintiffs' motion was dismissed because the requested relief was premature until the proposed amended statement of claim defined the scope of the case and because the matters would require special fixing before a judge if pursued later.

Court Disposition

Notices of motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The defendant's notice of motion filed on 10 February 2014 is dismissed." "The costs of the defendant's motion are to be the parties' costs in the cause." "The plaintiffs' notice of motion filed on 17 February 2014 is dismissed but without prejudice to seek orders to similar effect later in the course of these...