MAGENTA NOMINEES PTY LTD -v- BONINI & ORS [1999] WASC 88
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [1999] WASC 88 | |
| Case No: | CIV:1603/1995 | 28 APRIL 1999 | |
| Coram: | WHEELER J | 2/07/99 | |
| 30 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Plaintiff's action dismissed and defendants by counterclaim defence to counterclaim struck out pursuant to O 26 r 15 | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | MAGENTA NOMINEES PTY LTD GIANCARLO BONINI ANGELINA BONINI ANTIONETTA GRASSI CESARIO GRASSI MARCO COMITO STEPHEN DOMINIC BONINI ELSA BONINI COSIMO VINCENZO COMITO FRANCESCA COMITO |
Catchwords: | Practice and procedure Discovery Springing order for discovery "Failure" to give discovery Particulars (failure to supply) Expert report Striking out claim for failure to comply with court orders |
Legislation: | Rules of the Supreme Court, O 26 r 15 |
Case References: | Arbuthnot Bank v Trafalgar Holdings [1898] 2 All ER 181 Birkett v James [1978] AC 297 Burkett v Miller, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 2131; 1997 Department of Transport v Chris Smaller (Transport) Ltd [1989] 1 AC 1197 Freeman v Rabinov [1981] VR 539 Hartizen Nominees Pty Ltd v Rydge (1992) 29 NSWLR 405 In Re Londonderry's Settlement [1965] 1 Ch 918 J & J Products (a firm) v Ken Gray & Co (a firm), unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 960219; 24 April 1996 Mercantile Mutual Holdings Ltd v International Reinsurance Pty Ltd (unreported; SCt of NSW 14 August 1989 Butterworth's unreported judgments BC 8901849) Reiss v Woolf [1952] 2 QB 557 Republic of Liberia v Roye [1876] 1 App Cas 139 Southern Cross Oil v Fire and All Risks Insurance Co Ltd (1986) 7 NSWLR 319 Turner v Davies [1981] 2 NSWLR 324 Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol-Myers Co [1979] VR 273 Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Metal and Engineering Workers' Union - Western Australia & Ors, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970184; 24 April 1997 Hughes v Gales (1995) 14 WAR 434 Ken Gray & Co (A Firm) v J & J Products (A Firm), unreported; SCt of WA (Master Adams); Library No 950106; 17 March 1995 Re Jokai Tea Holdings Ltd (1992) 1 WLR 1196 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CHAMBERS
CIV 2199 of 1995
CIV 2200 of 1995
CIV 2202 of 1995
CIV 2203 of 1995
CIV 2204 of 1995
CIV 2205 of 1995
CIV 1304 of 1996
CIV 1039 of 1997
(Consolidated by Order dated 18 February 1997) BETWEEN : MAGENTA NOMINEES PTY LTD
- Plaintiff
AND
GIANCARLO BONINI
ANGELINA BONINI
First Defendants
ANTIONETTA GRASSI
CESARIO GRASSI
Second Defendants
MARCO COMITO
Third Defendant
STEPHEN DOMINIC BONINI
Fourth Defendant
(Page 2)
ELSA BONINI
Fifth Defendant
COSIMO VINCENZO COMITO
FRANCESCA COMITO
Sixth Defendants
(BY ORIGINAL ACTION)
GIANCARLO BONINI
ANGELINA BONINI
ANTIONETTA GRASSI
CESARIO GRASSI
MARCO COMITO
STEPHEN DOMINIC BONINI
ELSA GORNALL
COSIMO VINCENZO COMITO
FRANCESCA COMITO
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Magenta Nominees Pty Ltd v Bonini and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [1999] WASC 88
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Supreme Court of Western Australia, Magenta Nominees Pty Ltd initiated proceedings against several defendants, including Giancarlo Bonini and others, alleging breaches of trust and misrepresentations regarding a unit trust. The defendants counterclaimed, asserting mismanagement and excessive fees by Magenta. The case was marked by significant delays and non-compliance with court orders regarding discovery, particulars, and expert reports. Bonini and others filed a chamber summons seeking the dismissal of Magenta's claims and the striking out of the counterclaim defence, arguing that Magenta's conduct amounted to contumacious disregard for court orders. The court found that Magenta had been persistently dilatory in providing discovery, with the affidavits of discovery being incomplete and inadequate. Despite the affidavits being in proper form, the court concluded that the discovery did not comply with the orders, and the springing order was not self-executing. The court also noted significant delays in providing particulars and a defective expert report, which was incomplete and made no comment on available tax returns. The defendants' conduct was deemed to be a reckless disregard for their obligations, amounting to a calculated attempt to avoid disclosure and hinder the defendants' preparation for trial. The court found that the orders of the court must be obeyed, and a point is reached where a litigant who deliberately disobeys an order will not be allowed to proceed. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' summons, dismissing Magenta's action and striking out the defence to the counterclaim.
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.