District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Reece Pty Ltd v Jones & Jones Master Plumbers Pty Ltd [2012] NSWDC 98 Hearing dates: 21 June 2012 Decision date: 25 June 2012 Before: Gibson DCJ Decision: (1) Third cross-defendant's application to sever the cross-claimant's claim against it from these proceedings and heard separately is dismissed.
(2) Third cross-defendant pay the first defendant/cross-claimant's costs of this Notice of Motion.
(3) Third cross-defendant's Notice of Motion for summary judgment is stood over for further directions on 6 September 2012 in the Case Managed List.
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - motion for separate trial of proceedings by one cross-defendant against the cross-claimant - application dismissed Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 56, 57 and 58
District Court Act 1973 (NSW), s 46
Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth), ss 13, 14 and 54
Sale of Goods Act 1923 (NSW)
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), ss 51A, 52 and 74G(1)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 2.1, 6.22 and 6.29Cases Cited: AMP Fire & General Insurance Co Ltd v Dixon [1982] VR 833
AON Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175
ASIC v Axis International Management Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 250
Beneficial Finance Corporation v Price Waterhouse (1996) 68 SASR 19
Bi v Mourad [2010] NSWCA 17
Bishop v Bridgelands Securities (1990) 25 FCR 311
Carter v Commissioner of Taxation (2001) 109 FCR 215
D G Madin Ltd v Gordon [1964] SASR 64
Dean-Willcocks v Air Transit International Pty Ltd (2002) 55 NSWLR 64
Fitzgerald v Parramatta Leagues Club Ltd [2010] NSWSC 1126
GPI Leisure Corp Ltd v Yuill (Supreme Court of New South Wales, Young J, 6 August 1997)
Hyder Consulting (Victoria) Pty Ltd v CGU Insurance Ltd [2001] VSC 449
Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd (No 15) [2000] NSWSC 1215
Mann v Board of Health (ACT) (1996) 67 FCR 383
Martin v Cassidy (1969) 90 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 433
McCarthy v St Paul International Insurance Co Ltd (2007) 157 FCR 402
Owners SP 75903 v Dix [2011] NSWSC 245
Ramsay v Schiller [2012] NSWSC 596
Spirits International BV v Federal Treasury Enterprise (FKP) Sojuzplodoimport (2011) 91 IPR 438; [2011] FCAFC 69
Warragamba Winery Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales [2010] NSWSC 66
Waters v Smith [1969] 1 NSWR 151
Wood v Cross Television Centre Pty Ltd [1962] NSWR 528Texts Cited: Ritchies Uniform Civil Procedure NSW Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Cross-Claimant: Jones & Jones Master Plumbers Pty Ltd (ACN 096 654 581)Third Cross-Defendant: Wesfarmers General Insurance Ltd (ABN 24 000 036 279) Representation: Cross-Claimant: Mr C P Carter / Mr S LippThird Cross-Defendant: Mr M Sealey
Cross-Claimant: Doyles Construction LawyersThird Cross-Defendant: Sparke Helmore Lawyers
File Number(s): 2011/247763 Publication restriction: None
Judgment
The third cross-defendant (Wesfarmers General Insurance Ltd, hereafter "Wesfarmers") by notice of motion filed 4 May 2012 sought orders as follows:
(a) The cross-claim brought by the first defendant/cross-claimant (Jones & Jones Master Plumbers…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Reece Pty Ltd v Jones & Jones Master Plumbers Pty Ltd 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.
- Case
- [2012] NSWDC 98
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included the appropriate exercise of discretion to sever the claim, the potential for prejudice to the parties, and the efficiency of the overall proceedings. The court had to determine whether the third cross-defendant's application was in the interests of justice and whether there were any grounds to warrant a separate trial.
The court found that the application was not in the interests of justice, as the cross-claimant's claim against the third cross-defendant was inextricably linked to the main proceedings. The court held that severing the claim would cause significant inconvenience and prejudice to the cross-claimant and potentially disrupt the efficient administration of justice. The court further determined that the third cross-defendant's application for summary judgment would be stood over for further directions, indicating that the substantive issues would still need to be addressed in the context of the overall proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Third cross-defendant's application to sever the cross-claimant's claim against it from these proceedings and heard separately is dismissed.
(2) Third cross-defendant pay the first defendant/cross-claimant's costs of this Notice of Motion.
(3) Third cross-defendant's Notice of Motion for summary judgment is stood over for further directions on 6 September 2012 in the Case Managed List.
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.