Legal Research
Cases
Angius v Salier

Angius v Salier

Case [2018] NSWSC 808 31 May 2018

Joinder

Costs

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Angius v Salier [2018] NSWSC 808
Hearing dates: 3 May 2018
Date of orders: 31 May 2018
Decision date: 31 May 2018
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Robb J
Decision:
See paragraph [64]

Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Parties — Joinder — Of defendants — Of beneficiary of trust — Applicant joined as Seventh Defendant — Applicant joined at own risk as to costs — Applicant joined on condition that he not file any pleading without leave of court
Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Commissioner of Stamp Duties (Qld) v Livingston (1964) 112 CLR 12; [1965] AC 694
Official Receiver in Bankruptcy v Schultz (1990) 170 CLR 306; [1990] HCA 45
Vasiljev v Public Trustee [1974] 2 NSWLR 497
Angius v Salier [2015] NSWSC 1446
Salier v Angius [2015] NSWSC 853
Ashton v Pratt [2013] NSWCA 400
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Robert Angius (Applicant)
John Angius (Plaintiff)
Gordon Salier (First Defendant/Respondent)
Angius Hotel Investments Pty Ltd (Second Defendant)
Togumi Pty Ltd (Third Defendant)
J & L Angius Pty Ltd (Fourth Defendant)
Tararba Pty Ltd (Fifth Defendant)
Angius Investments Pty Ltd (Sixth Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
M Willmott SC / C Birtles (First Defendant)
V Culkoff (applicant on notice of motion)
Solicitors:
George Loupos Associates (Plaintiff)
Teece Hodgson & Ward (First Defendant)
Carneys Lawyers (Second to Sixth Defendants)
Perez Varela Lawyers (applicant on notice of motion)

File Number(s): 2016/142494

Judgment

By notice of motion filed in Court on 15 November 2017, the applicant, Robert Angius, seeks an order that he be joined as a defendant to the proceedings.
The plaintiff in these proceedings is John Angius, Robert's father. It will therefore be convenient, without any disrespect intended, to refer to the members of the Angius family by their first names.
Robert and John are estranged. It is an open matter that there is considerable antagonism between them. That is also apparently true for other members of the Angius family. There have been disturbances in court, although not in any substantial way between Robert and John.
Robert originally sought that he be joined as the fifth defendant to the proceedings. In the interim, further parties have been joined as defendants, so that if an order is made on the notice of motion, Robert will be joined as the seventh defendant.
Since Robert's notice of motion has been filed, a request has been made for leave for Robert to file an amended notice of motion. In the face of opposition from other parties, the Court declined to grant the leave sought, but agreed that the notice of motion could be handed up pending an opportunity on the part of the Court to deal with the amendment application.
The first defendant to these proceedings is Gordon Albert Salier. Mr Salier is the administrator with the will attached of the estate of the late Laura Angius, who was the wife of John and the mother of Robert. Gianna (Jenny) Angius, who is…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Angius v Salier

Details

AGLC: Angius v Salier [2018] NSWSC 808
Case: [2018] NSWSC 808
Decision Date: 31 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Angius v Salier involved a dispute between the parties, with the court determining whether the applicant, who was joined as the Seventh Defendant, could be held liable for the costs incurred during the proceedings. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant, who was the beneficiary of a trust, was joined as a defendant in the case, and the issue at hand was whether he could be held responsible for the costs incurred during the proceedings, given that he was joined at his own risk as to costs.

The legal issues that the court had to decide were whether the applicant could be held liable for the costs incurred during the proceedings, and whether the applicant could file any pleading without the leave of the court. The court had to determine whether the conditions that were set out for the applicant's joinder as the Seventh Defendant were valid, and whether they could be enforced. The court also had to determine whether the applicant's joinder as the Seventh Defendant was valid, and whether it was necessary for the applicant to seek leave of the court before filing any pleading.

The court held that the applicant was joined at his own risk as to costs, and that he could be held liable for the costs incurred during the proceedings. The court also held that the conditions that were set out for the applicant's joinder as the Seventh Defendant were valid and could be enforced. The court held that the applicant's joinder as the Seventh Defendant was valid, and that he was required to seek leave of the court before filing any pleading. The court held that the applicant was joined on condition that he not file any pleading without leave of the court.

The final orders of the court were that the applicant was joined as the Seventh Defendant at his own risk as to costs, and that he was required to seek leave of the court before filing any pleading. The court also held that the conditions that were set out for the applicant's joinder as the Seventh Defendant were valid and could be enforced. The court held that the applicant's joinder as the Seventh Defendant was valid, and that he could be held liable for the costs incurred during the proceedings.

Orders