De Varda and Tov-Lev v The Board of Directors of the Strathfield and District Hebrew Congregation Ltd
Case
•
[2012] NSWSC 1377
•15 November 2012
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
De Varda and Tov-Lev v The Board of Directors of the Strathfield and District Hebrew Congregation Ltd [2012] NSWSC 1377
[2012] NSWSC 1377
15 November 2012
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of De Varda and Tov-Lev v The Board of Directors of the Strathfield and District Hebrew Congregation Ltd involved the applicants seeking various orders in relation to proceedings that had already been dismissed. The applicants were seeking an extension of time to comply with previous orders, leave to file a further amended summons and statement of claim, a stay of previous costs orders, and a stay of execution of those orders. The respondents, the Board of Directors, opposed the applications. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
The court was required to determine whether the applicants were entitled to an extension of time to comply with the previous orders, leave to file a further amended summons and statement of claim, and a stay of the previous costs orders until the determination of the proceedings. The court was also required to consider whether the applications should be granted in circumstances where the proceedings had already been dismissed.
The court found that the applicants had not demonstrated any special circumstances that would warrant an extension of time to comply with the previous orders. The court also found that the applicants had not demonstrated that there was any merit in their proposed further amended summons and statement of claim. The court held that there were no grounds to grant a stay of the previous costs orders until the determination of the proceedings. The court found that the applications should not be granted in circumstances where the proceedings had already been dismissed.
The court dismissed the applications and ordered that the applicants pay the respondents' costs of the applications on an indemnity basis.
The court was required to determine whether the applicants were entitled to an extension of time to comply with the previous orders, leave to file a further amended summons and statement of claim, and a stay of the previous costs orders until the determination of the proceedings. The court was also required to consider whether the applications should be granted in circumstances where the proceedings had already been dismissed.
The court found that the applicants had not demonstrated any special circumstances that would warrant an extension of time to comply with the previous orders. The court also found that the applicants had not demonstrated that there was any merit in their proposed further amended summons and statement of claim. The court held that there were no grounds to grant a stay of the previous costs orders until the determination of the proceedings. The court found that the applications should not be granted in circumstances where the proceedings had already been dismissed.
The court dismissed the applications and ordered that the applicants pay the respondents' costs of the applications on an indemnity basis.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Limitation Periods
-
Stay of Proceedings
-
Appeal
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Tov-Lev v Lowbeer (No 2) [2014] FCA 379
Cases Citing This Decision
6
Lowbeer v Tov Lev
[2013] FCCA 1813
Tov-Lev v Lowbeer (No 2)
[2014] FCA 379
Cases Cited
19
Statutory Material Cited
4
Bailey v Marinoff
[1971] HCA 49
Seltsam Pty Ltd v Energy Australia
[1999] NSWCA 89
Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Bluescope Steel Ltd
[2012] NSWCA 240