Legal Research
Cases
Grizonic v Suttor

Grizonic v Suttor

Case [2008] NSWSC 914 3 July 2008

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Grizonic v Suttor [2008] NSWSC 914

HEARING DATE(S): 3 July 2008

JUDGMENT DATE :
1 September 2008

JURISDICTION: Equity Division
Expedition List

JUDGMENT OF: Brereton J

DECISION: Order 11 of 5 February 2004 in proceeding 6141/03 stayed. Proceeding 2475/05 dismissed against third defendant. Proceeding 1960/08 stayed.

CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE – where plaintiff and defendant were former partners in business ordered by the Court in 2004 to give an account of partnership assets – where parties have sold jointly owned property and moneys have been paid into Court – where proceedings have lengthy history of in excess of 110 interlocutory adjudications and non-compliance of Court directions by parties – where plaintiff no longer legally represented – where length and cost of proceedings is disproportionate to final relief claimed and available – where plaintiff granted postponement of final hearing on two earlier occasions – where plaintiff alleged that he has been precluded by the Court from adducing evidence – where plaintiff left court room on day appointed for hearing – whether account should be stayed – disposition of outstanding proceedings.

LEGISLATION CITED: (NSW) Civil Procedure Act 2005, ss 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
(NSW) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, r 46.9

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Claudio Grizonic v Maurice Blackburn Cashman Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 76
Grizonic v Suttor, [2008] NSWSC 900
Grizonic v Suttor, [2008] NSWSC 912
Grizonic v Suttor, [2008] NSWSC 913
Grizonic v Suttor; Grizonic v McDonald [2006] NSWSC 1359
In the Marriage of Trnka (1984) 10 Fam LR 213; (1984) FLC 91-535
In Re Cornish Tin Sands Ltd, Bastard v The Company [1918] WN 377
Jameel v Dow Jones & Co Inc [2005] EWCA Civ 75; [2005] QB 946
Schellenberg v British Broadcasting Coorporation [2000] EMLR 296
Wade v Trnka [2006] NSWSC 1097
Wade (formerly Trnka ) v Trnka (1996) 135 FLR 198; (1996) FLC 92-711
Wallis v Valentine [2002] EWCA Civ 1034; [2003] EMLR 8

PARTIES: 6141/03 Claudio Grizonic (plaintiff)
Suzanne Ranken Suttor (first defendant)
Find a Flat Pty Ltd (second defendant)
2475/05 Claudio Grizonic (plaintiff)
Geoffrey McDonald (first defendant)
Paul Leroy (second defendant)
Suzanne Suttor (third defendant)
1960/08 Claudio Grizonic (plaintiff)
Suzanne Ranken Suttor (first defendant)
Rodney Ranken Suttor (second defendant)
Find a Flat Pty Ltd (third defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 6141/03; 2475/05; 1960/08

COUNSEL: Mr C Grizonic (in person) (plaintiff)
Mr A Jungwirth (D1,2 in 6141/03), (D3 in 2475/05), (D1, 2, 3 in 1960/08)
Ms M Campbell (D1, 2 in 2475/05)

SOLICITORS: Mr Mark Gallego (D1,2 in 6141/03), (D3 in 2475/05), (D1, 2, 3 in 1960/08)
Yates Beaggi Lawyers (D1, 2 in 2475/05)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
EXPEDITION LIST

BRERETON J

Monday, 1 September 2008

6141/03 Claudio Grizonic v Suzanne Ranken Suttor & 1 Or
2475/05 Claudio Grizonic v Geoffrey McDonald & 2 Ors
1960/08 Claudio Grizonic v Suzanne Ranken Suttor & 2 Ors

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff Mr Grizonic, who was born in 1950, and the first defendant Ms Suttor, who was born in…

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 Grizonic v Suttor

Details

AGLC: Grizonic v Suttor [2008] NSWSC 914
Case: [2008] NSWSC 914
Decision Date: 3 July 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Grizonic versus Suttor, the plaintiff and defendant, who were once partners in a business, appeared before the court following an order from 2004 that required them to provide a detailed account of their partnership assets. The parties have since sold jointly owned property, and the proceeds have been deposited into the court. The proceedings have a long history marked by more than 110 interlocutory decisions and non-compliance with court directives by both parties. The plaintiff is no longer legally represented, and the duration and expense of the proceedings seem disproportionate to the relief sought and available. The plaintiff had previously been granted postponements for the final hearing on two occasions, and alleged that the court had prevented him from presenting evidence. On the day set for the hearing, the plaintiff left the courtroom. The court had to decide whether the account should be postponed and how to dispose of the remaining proceedings.

The primary legal issues for the court were whether to continue with the final hearing and, if not, how to handle the remaining proceedings. The court had to consider the history of non-compliance with court orders and the disproportionate cost and length of the proceedings relative to the relief sought. Additionally, the court needed to address the plaintiff's allegations of being prevented from presenting evidence and his absence from the courtroom on the appointed hearing day. These issues required a careful balance between the rights of the parties and the need to efficiently and fairly resolve the dispute.

After considering the extensive history of the case and the conduct of the parties, the court concluded that the account should be stayed. The court found that the length and cost of the proceedings were indeed disproportionate to the relief claimed. The plaintiff's allegations of being prevented from adducing evidence and his absence from the courtroom on the appointed hearing day were noted, but the court determined that these factors did not warrant a continuation of the final hearing at that time. The court ordered that the remaining proceedings be disposed of in a manner that was just and efficient, taking into account the history and circumstances of the case.

The court's final orders were to stay the account and to dispose of the remaining proceedings in a manner deemed just and efficient by the court, reflecting the unique circumstances and history of the case. The court's decision emphasised the need for a fair and proportionate resolution of the dispute, considering the significant costs and duration of the proceedings relative to the relief sought.

Orders