Citicorp Australia Ltd & Ors v Cirillo & Anor No. Scciv-85-1481

CITICORP AUSTRALIA LIMITED & ORS V CIRILLO & ANOR
[2001] SASC 104

Civil (Ex Tempore)

LANDER J. This is an application by the plaintiff for an order dismissing the first defendant’s application for inquiry as to damages, in respect of an undertaking given by the plaintiffs in support of an order for an injunction on 3 May 1985 by Cox J, and two further orders extending that injunction made by White J on 10 May 1985, and 24 May 1985.

This matter has been set for hearing for some time. This morning I refused an application for an adjournment by the first defendant, for reasons which I gave at that time. I granted the first defendant two short adjournments, the first for 15 minutes so that instructions could be taken in relation to my refusal to grant of adjournment and the second for a period between 12 o’clock and 2.15, so that counsel could be consulted about my refusal to grant an adjournment.
The matter resumed at 2.15 pm The first defendant renewed his application for an adjournment upon the same grounds as the application this morning, and I dismissed the application for the same reasons I gave this morning. After refusing the adjournment, I asked the solicitor for the plaintiff, to present the plaintiff’s case. He said that he could not and would not and he adduced no evidence in support of the plaintiff’s case.
Mr Wells QC, has now made an application under rule 2.09 of the Supreme Court Rules, for an order striking out the application for an inquiry as to damages in respect of the plaintiff’s undertaking. The first defendant has refused my offer of a further short adjournment to take instructions from his client. I inquired again whether the first defendant would present his evidence, so that the matter could proceed, but was advised that no evidence would be presented in support of the first defendant’s application for an inquiry as to damages. It seems to me that unless I accede to Mr Wells’s application, then the matter would have to be adjourned, which of course would be a perverse result, because I have refused such an application. In my opinion it would be appropriate, in the circumstances, where the matter has been called on and no evidence has been led, or will be led in support of the application, that the application should be dismissed.
I therefore make an order dismissing the first defendant’s application for an inquiry as to damages in respect to the plaintiff’s undertaking.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Citicorp Australia Limited & Others v Cirillo & Another was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The plaintiffs sought an order to dismiss the first defendant's application for an inquiry into damages related to an undertaking given by the plaintiffs to support an injunction. The injunction was initially ordered by Cox J on 3 May 1985, and subsequently extended by White J on 10 May 1985 and 24 May 1985. The first defendant had previously applied for an adjournment, which was refused by the court, leading to the current proceedings.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the first defendant's application for an inquiry into damages should be dismissed given that no evidence was presented in support of the application. The court had to consider the procedural rules and the circumstances surrounding the refusal of the adjournment, as well as the implications of allowing or dismissing the application for inquiry into damages.

Lander J dismissed the application for an inquiry into damages, reasoning that the matter had been set for hearing for a considerable time and the first defendant had not presented any evidence to support the application. The court noted that the matter would need to be adjourned if the application were not dismissed, which would be counterproductive given the previous refusal of an adjournment. The judge concluded that it was appropriate to dismiss the application under the circumstances, as no evidence was led in support of the application.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the first defendant's application for an inquiry into damages in respect of the plaintiffs' undertaking. The decision was based on the procedural history of the case, the refusal of the adjournment, and the absence of any evidence presented in support of the application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established