GPG Fortitude Valley v Thakral Capital Australia (No 2)

The plaintiffs in GPG Fortitude Valley v Thakral Capital Australia (No 2) sought leave to file and pursue a cross-claim after judgment had already been entered in the proceedings. The judgment had resolved one of the three issues presented, while the cross-claim sought to re-agitate the other two issues. The court was tasked with determining whether it should grant the plaintiffs leave to file and pursue their cross-claim, considering the limited utility and potential consequences of doing so.

The court considered whether the granting of leave would be futile or would result in a piecemeal determination of the issues. It was noted that the real consequences of allowing the cross-claim were uncertain, and there was no estoppel preventing the defendants from commencing fresh proceedings when those consequences became clearer. The court further found that allowing the cross-claim would not significantly advance the progress of the proceedings, and there was a risk of prejudice to the defendants if the cross-claim were to proceed.

After weighing the factors, the court concluded that the limited utility of granting leave, coupled with the uncertainty as to the consequences, made it inappropriate to grant leave. The application was dismissed, leaving the plaintiffs to consider their options for pursuing the unresolved issues in the future.