Nolasco, A v Jenolan Investments Pty Ltd

EPID :

'. .

more directly to 83ther applicants. The appellant is n o t ~n the position of proceedlnq to recover loss or damage which he did not incur himself directlv.

There are a number of other factors oovern~ng

the na%+er

aut; I am satisfied that an

order should he made and the questlon

I S really

a s to how much.

m e amount sought 1s

$zO,OOO.

I ,an

.told by Mr Yaple for the appellant that in

fact it is proposed to

reduce t'ne number of qrnunds of appeal substantially and chat therefore the estimated time of the trial should be taken as

about one and a half da~rs. A s Mr Bannon has pointed out., thls 1s

' perhaps

best

taken, f o r practical purposes, IS two

days.

Thc

applicatlon below vas, as I have sald, unsurcessful

There was

however, a successful cross-application on behalf

of some or all

of the present respondents and

the amounts liable

t o be pald. if

the present judument stands, are very suhstantial

avotd an order €or securtty for costs which 1s unduly oppress~ve,

the smmn:

I think -,h?uld he f ixed at. $10.000.

@ne way or another -t seems to me that he case will not

be ready to prcceed

'32 10

J u l y , that Seinq the date fnr which it

1 s presentlp

flxed, and I vlll order that that

date be vacated

but that another

date b? f:xed

at a short tlme thereafter to be

determlqed bp the di~jtrlct registrar

cn app11cat.i-n made to him.

I . .

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Nolasco v Jenolan Investments Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the appellant, Nolasco, and the respondent, Jenolan Investments Pty Ltd. The appellant sought to recover damages for loss or damage they did not directly incur. The court was required to decide whether the appellant was entitled to recover the amount sought and whether the security for costs was unduly oppressive. The court also needed to determine the appropriate amount for security for costs and the new trial date.

The court found that the appellant was not in a position to recover damages they did not directly incur. The court considered several factors before deciding that the amount of security for costs should be set at $10,000. This amount was intended to avoid any oppressive orders. The court also considered the proposed reduction in the number of grounds of appeal and set a new trial date. The court found that the current judgment stands, and the parties liable for substantial amounts if the judgment remains unchanged. The court ordered that the date for the trial be vacated but set a new date to be determined by the District Registrar upon application.

The court's decision was that the appellant was not entitled to recover the amount sought as they did not directly incur the loss or damage. The court set the security for costs at $10,000 to avoid any oppressive orders. The court also set a new trial date to be determined by the District Registrar upon application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established