WLD Practice Holdings Pty Limited v Sara Stockham [2021] NSWSC 634

WLD Practice Holdings Pty Limited v Sara Stockham [2021] NSWSC 634

The Points of Defence [16]-[95] constituted impermissible attempts to relitigate issues already resolved by the Court and Court of Appeal, namely the role of cl.7.8 and cl.6.12 in the valuation, and are barred by res judicata and Anshun estoppel. Summary judgment should be entered for valuation costs as the Second Defendant was a 'Bad Leaver' and the contract required payment of all costs of determination. The Third Cross-Summons is dismissed as it cannot stand given the strike out of the Points of Defence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Appeal, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Application
Outcome
Plaintiff's application granted: Points of Defence [16]-[95] struck out, summary judgment entered for valuation costs (against Second Defendant), Third Cross-Summons dismissed.
Legal Topics
['summary Judgment' 'strike Out Application' 'trusts' 'estoppel (res Judicata, Issue Estoppel, Anshun Estoppel)' 'valuation']
['equity' 'civil Procedure'] ['summary Judgment' 'strike Out Application' 'trusts' 'estoppel (res Judicata, Issue Estoppel, Anshun Estoppel)' 'valuation']

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 Appeal, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether paragraphs [16]-[95] of Points of Defence should be struck out as impermissible attempts to relitigate issues previously determined' 'Whether summary judgment should be entered on the valuation costs application' 'Whether the Valuer was required to have regard to cl.7.8 or cl.6.12 of the Unitholders Agreement in the valuation process' "Whether the Second Defendant was a 'Bad Leaver' for purposes of the Unitholders Agreement" 'Whether the Third Cross-Summons should be summarily dismissed']

Ratio Decidendi

The Points of Defence [16]-[95] constituted impermissible attempts to relitigate issues already resolved by the Court and Court of Appeal, namely the role of cl.7.8 and cl.6.12 in the valuation, and are barred by res judicata and Anshun estoppel. Summary judgment should be entered for valuation costs as the Second Defendant was a 'Bad Leaver' and the contract required payment of all costs of determination. The Third Cross-Summons is dismissed as it cannot stand given the strike out of the Points of Defence.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application granted: Points of Defence [16]-[95] struck out, summary judgment entered for valuation costs (against Second Defendant), Third Cross-Summons dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Paragraphs [16]-[95] of Points of Defence struck out.' 'Summary judgment for valuation costs against Second Defendant.' 'Dismissal of Third Cross-Summons.' 'Parties invited to submit short minutes of order for costs and GST.']