CITATION: Gordon v Allied Meridian Pty Ltd (No 2) [1999] NSWSC 565 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity Division FILE NUMBER(S): 1990/99 HEARING DATE(S): 03/06/99 JUDGMENT DATE:
3 June 1999PARTIES :
Hugh Charles Gordon (P)
Allied Meridian Pty Ltd (D)JUDGMENT OF: Young J
COUNSEL : Plaintiff: D P Robinson and M Green
Affected Defendants: R J WebbSOLICITORS: Plaintiff: Tress Cocks & Maddox
Defendants: Kemp StrangCATCHWORDS: Procedure [85]; Cross claim; Application to file cross claim after suit heard; Rejected as not convenient CASES CITED: Gray v Webb (1882) 21 Ch D 802 DECISION: See paras 6 and 7
THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISIONYOUNG, J
THURSDAY 3 JUNE 1999
1990/99 - HUGH CHARLES GORDON V ALLIED MERIDIAN PTY LTD & ORS (NO 2)
JUDGMENT
1 HIS HONOUR : This morning I made orders in accordance with short minutes, after discussion, to dispose of these proceedings in which I had given judgment on 28 May 1999.
2 One of the unusual aspects of the case is that because of certain of my findings of fact the loser, if cards fall out in a particular way, may end up the eventual winner. For this reason Mr Webb, who appears for the main defendants, has asked for leave to file a cross-claim so that the findings in the present proceedings can be used in the next round, without running the risk of any problems of issue estoppel. This has been resisted by the plaintiff.
3 The Supreme Court Rules do have a bias towards having all the matters decided at the one time and dealing with any legitimate cross-claims at the same time as the claim.
4 However, the cases on the current Rules and the corresponding old Rules and the English Rules are that essentially whether a cross-claim should be allowed or the claimant left to pursue a separate action is one of general convenience: Gray v Webb (1882) 21 Ch D 802.
5 I cannot see how it is convenient after the whole claim has been decided, following a three day hearing and orders made, for a cross-claim to be then filed and determined, as opposed to a new action, forensic advantages put to one side. I can understand how this could possibly be so where the cross-claim was for indemnity, but even then there may be questions of fairness and convenience. In the present case, there are no countervailing factors.
6 Accordingly, I am not of the view it would be convenient for the cross-claim to be dealt with in these proceedings and I decline to give the leave.
7 The costs of the application for leave to file a cross-claim are to be paid by the defendants for whom Mr Webb appears.
o0o
Last Modified:
Details
- AGLC
- Gordon v Allied Meridian Pty Ltd (No 2) [1999] NSWSC 565
- Case
- [1999] NSWSC 565
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case involved Gordon as the plaintiff and Allied Meridian Pty Ltd as the defendant, with the dispute concerning the procedural aspect of allowing a cross claim to be filed after the main suit had been heard. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. Gordon sought to file a cross claim against Allied Meridian after the initial suit had concluded, arguing that the cross claim was an integral part of the original proceedings.
The central legal issue before the court was whether it was appropriate to permit the filing of a cross claim after the primary litigation had already been heard, considering the principles of procedural fairness and the convenience of the parties involved. The court had to weigh the potential merits of Gordon's cross claim against the broader considerations of judicial efficiency and the fairness to the defendant, Allied Meridian.
In its reasoning, the court emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural rules and the principle that the court should not entertain claims that could have been raised earlier if it would be inconvenient to do so at a later stage. The court held that permitting the cross claim to be filed post-hearing would disrupt the orderly process of litigation and potentially prejudice the defendant. Consequently, the court rejected Gordon's application to file the cross claim after the main suit had been heard, concluding that it was not convenient to allow such a late addition to the proceedings.
The court's decision was definitive, with no orders permitting the filing of the cross claim after the conclusion of the primary litigation. The court's ruling underscored the necessity for strict adherence to procedural timelines and the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.
The central legal issue before the court was whether it was appropriate to permit the filing of a cross claim after the primary litigation had already been heard, considering the principles of procedural fairness and the convenience of the parties involved. The court had to weigh the potential merits of Gordon's cross claim against the broader considerations of judicial efficiency and the fairness to the defendant, Allied Meridian.
In its reasoning, the court emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural rules and the principle that the court should not entertain claims that could have been raised earlier if it would be inconvenient to do so at a later stage. The court held that permitting the cross claim to be filed post-hearing would disrupt the orderly process of litigation and potentially prejudice the defendant. Consequently, the court rejected Gordon's application to file the cross claim after the main suit had been heard, concluding that it was not convenient to allow such a late addition to the proceedings.
The court's decision was definitive, with no orders permitting the filing of the cross claim after the conclusion of the primary litigation. The court's ruling underscored the necessity for strict adherence to procedural timelines and the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.