Nanevski Developments Pty Ltd v Slaveski [2020] NSWSC 617
Hearing dates:
11 May 2020
Date of orders:
22 May 2020
Decision date:
22 May 2020
Jurisdiction:
Equity
Before:
Ward CJ in Eq
Decision:
Partnership proceedings (2019/00153341) 1. Pursuant to r 12.6 of the UCPR, grant leave to the defendants to withdraw the admissions made at [11] of their amended defence by the filing of the further amended defence (Further Amended Defence) in the form annexed to the defendants’ amended notice of motion filed 14 April 2020. 2. Grant leave to the defendants to file and serve the Further Amended Defence but with amendment to plead specifically the facts, matters and circumstances relied upon for the allegation at [53] of the proposed further amended defence; and direct that a verified copy of the Further Amended Defence be filed and served within seven days. 3. Grant leave to the defendants to file and serve a cross-claim in the form of the cross-claim annexed to the defendants’ amended notice of motion filed 14 April 2020, but with amendment to correct typographical or cross-referencing errors and to take into account the reasons insofar as the claims for relief against Mr Tom Nanevski personally are concerned. 4. Order that the defendants pay the plaintiffs’ costs thrown away by the amendment to the amended defence. 5. Otherwise order that the costs of the defendants’ amended notice of motion filed 14 April 2020 be the defendants’ costs in the cause. 6. Order that this proceeding be listed at the same time (for directions and for hearing in due course consecutively) as the following matters (2018/00357790; 2019/00095013; and 2019/00095876). 7. Stand the matter over for directions before me on 26 May 2020 at 8.30am. 8. Refer the matter to court-annexed mediation on a date to be fixed on 26 May 2020. Windows proceeding (2018/00357790) 1. Grant leave to the plaintiff to file and serve the amended statement of claim annexed to the plaintiff’s notice of motion filed 3 April 2020. 2. Order pursuant to rule 28.5(c) of the UCPR, that this proceeding be listed at the same time (for directions and for hearing in due course consecutively) as the following matters (2019/00153341; 2019/00095013; and 2019/00095876), 3. Remit to the Registry the application for waiver of the plaintiff’s fees for the filing of the plaintiff’s notice of motion filed 3 April 2020. 4. Order that the costs of the plaintiff’s notice of motion filed 3 April 2020 be the plaintiff’s costs in the cause. 5. Stand the matter over for directions before me on 26 May 2020 at 8.30am. 6. Refer the matter to court-annexed mediation on a date to be fixed on 26 May 2020. Steel importation proceeding (2019/00095013) 1. Grant leave to the plaintiff to file and serve the amended statement of claim in the form annexed to the plaintiff’s notice of motion filed on 2 April 2020. 2. Order pursuant to rule 28.5(c) of the UCPR, that this…
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 Nanevski Developments Pty Ltd v Slaveski
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Nanevski Developments Pty Ltd v Slaveski [2020] NSWSC 617
Case
[2020] NSWSC 617
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The dispute in Nanevski Developments Pty Ltd v Slaveski involved the plaintiffs, Nanevski Developments, who sought damages for alleged breaches of contract and misleading and deceptive conduct. The defendant, Slaveski, contested these claims. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central legal issue the court needed to address was whether the plaintiffs' statement of claim should be struck out due to significant defects in its form and content, particularly regarding the pleading of material facts. Additionally, the court had to determine if the plaintiffs' late application to amend their pleadings should be allowed.
The court analysed the plaintiffs' statement of claim and found it contained numerous deficiencies, including an absence of particulars that clearly outlined the material facts supporting their claims. The court highlighted that the defects had a tendency to cause prejudice, embarrassment, or delay in the proceedings. Despite these findings, the court noted that the plaintiffs had provided a detailed affidavit outlining the intended amendments and the factual basis for their claims. The court acknowledged the importance of ensuring the fairness and efficiency of the judicial process but also recognised the potential for prejudice to the defendant if the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed outright without an opportunity to amend.
After weighing the competing considerations, the court concluded that the plaintiffs' late application to amend should be granted. The court found that the prejudice to the plaintiffs in not allowing the amendments outweighed the potential delay and inconvenience to the defendant. The court allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended statement of claim, providing them an opportunity to properly plead their case and thereby advancing the cause of justice. The court emphasised the need for future pleadings to comply strictly with the rules to avoid similar issues.
The final orders of the court allowed the plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim within a specified timeframe and directed the parties to proceed with the amended pleadings. The court's decision underscored the balance required between procedural fairness and the need for efficient case management in litigation.