Critchley v Conway

Critchley and Conway were the parties involved in this matter before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales. The dispute concerned summary judgment orders made by Debelle AJ against five defendants, with the appeal focusing on whether the trial judge was entitled to order summary judgment against two specific defendants, particularly in relation to 33 wine storage tanks. A key aspect of the appeal was whether orders had been sought against these two defendants who were not identified in the amended statement of claim, and whether the parties had pursued a different basis for determining their rights and liabilities at trial than that which was pleaded.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to create a triable issue regarding the liability of the two appellants, and whether it was open for the trial judge to make certain findings and inferences in the context of summary judgment proceedings. Specifically, the court considered whether the summary judgment was appropriately ordered against the appellants, given the nature of the claims and the evidence presented.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal and upheld the appeal in part, setting aside the summary judgment orders made by Debelle AJ concerning the 33 wine storage tanks. However, save for those specific orders, the appeal against the other orders made by the trial judge was dismissed. The court directed that the issues relating to the 33 wine storage tanks would proceed to trial, along with any other outstanding issues in the case. As each party was partially successful, no order was made as to the costs of the application for leave to appeal or the appeal itself.