Irani v St George Bank Limited (No 3)

Irani v St George Bank Limited (No 3) involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Irani, and the defendant, St George Bank Limited, concerning an application for judgment on a counterclaim for an amount of money. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue before the court was whether the defendant could be permitted to reopen its case to prove the quantum of the debt when it had not been pleaded, and whether the defendant was entitled to indemnity costs based on a contractual indemnity.

The court examined the procedural rules and determined that the defendant was not permitted to reopen its case to prove the quantum of the debt, as it had not been pleaded. The court noted that Rule 59.01 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 1996 did not provide grounds for such relief. Consequently, the application for judgment on the counterclaim was dismissed. Regarding the costs, the court found that while the contractual indemnity clause existed, the application for indemnity costs was not successful. Instead, the court ordered costs on the ordinary basis, distinguishing this case from Reading Entertainment Australia Pty Ltd v Burstone Victoria Pty Ltd (No 2) [2005] VSC 137. The court also granted a stay of execution and an injunction pending the defendant's application for a stay to the Court of Appeal.