Legal Research
Cases
Crows Nest Retail Pty Ltd v Sanchez

Crows Nest Retail Pty Ltd v Sanchez

Case [2012] NSWSC 1019 3 September 2012

Summary Judgment

Limitation Periods

Res Judicata

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Crows Nest Retail Pty Ltd v Sanchez [2012] NSWSC 1019
Hearing dates: 16 August 2012
Decision date: 03 September 2012
Jurisdiction: Equity Division
Before: Hallen AsJ
Decision:
(a) Verdict and judgment for the Plaintiffs against the first Defendant for $2,313,342.86, plus interest from 7 November 2011 pursuant to s100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005.
(b) Verdict and judgment for the Plaintiffs against the second Defendant for $2,313,342.86, plus interest from 7 November 2011 pursuant to s 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005.
(c) Verdict and judgment for the Plaintiffs against the third Defendant for $2,100,000, plus interest from 16 November 2011, pursuant to s 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005.
(d) The Defendants to pay the Plaintiffs' costs as agreed or assessed.
(e) Order that the exhibits be returned.
(f) Stand over the balance of the proceedings to the Registrar's list on a date suitable to counsel.

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - summary judgment application - r. 13.1 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 - no triable issue in case against first three Defendants - orders for summary judgment made
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005
Uniform Civil Procedures Rules 2005
Cases Cited: Agar v Hyde [2000] HCA 41; (2000) 201 CLR 552
Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority (NSW) [2006] HCA 27; (2006) 226 CLR 256
Baulderstone Hornibrook Pty Ltd v HBO & DC Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 821
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125
Hawker Noyes Equipment Pty Limited v Dueeasy Pty Limited (NSWCA, 18 July 1996, unreported)
Knight v Wilson [2008] NSWSC 1083
Quality Bakers Australia Pty Ltd v Yassin Modern Bakery Pty Ltd (t/a Yassin Lebanese Bakery) [2007] NSWSC 804
Sidebottom v Cureton (1937) 54 WN (NSW) 88
Spencer v Commonwealth [2010] HCA 28; (2010) 241 CLR 118
Theseus Exploration NL v Foyster (1972) 126 CLR 507
Wallingford v Mutual Society (1880) LR 5 App Cas 685
Wickstead v Browne [1992] NSWCA 272; (1992) 30 NSWLR 1
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Crows Nest Retail Pty Ltd (Receivers & Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) ACN 126 435 881 (first Plaintiff)
Bank of Western Australia Limited ACN 050 494 454 (second Plaintiff)
Christian Michael Sanchez (first Defendant)
Michael Angel Sanchez (second Defendant)
Kate A Sanchez (third Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr P Newton (Plaintiffs)
Mr B A Jacobs (first, second & third Defendants)
Solicitors:
Gadens Lawyers (Plaintiffs)
Landerer & Company Solicitors (first, second & third Defendants)

File Number(s): 2011/385211

Judgment

The Claim

HIS HONOUR: By amended Notice of Motion filed 2 July 2012, the Plaintiffs seek orders, including an order that the "amended Points of Defence", filed 13 June 2012, be struck out and an order that judgment be entered for them against the Defendants, in terms of the final relief claimed in the Amended Summons filed 15 December 2011 and on their Points of Claim filed on 15 February 2012. (I propose to treat the document…

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 Crows Nest Retail Pty Ltd v Sanchez

Details

AGLC: Crows Nest Retail Pty Ltd v Sanchez [2012] NSWSC 1019
Case: [2012] NSWSC 1019
Decision Date: 03 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved Crows Nest Retail Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, and three defendants: Sanchez, D'Amato, and 4307144 Australia Pty Ltd. The plaintiff sought summary judgment against the first three defendants, arguing that there were no triable issues of fact or law in their favour. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether there were any triable issues of fact or law that precluded the entry of summary judgment against the first three defendants. The plaintiff's application hinged on establishing that there were no genuine issues to be determined at trial, which would allow the court to determine the case without a full hearing. The defendants had the burden of proving that there were indeed triable issues that required a trial to resolve.

The court found that the plaintiff had successfully demonstrated that there were no triable issues of fact or law against the first three defendants. The evidence presented by the plaintiff was sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the defendants, and the defendants had failed to provide any evidence or argument that would suggest otherwise. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's application for summary judgment against the first three defendants. The final orders included a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment against the first three defendants, and the court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs of the application.

Orders