Safaro v Bonarrigo - [2009] VSC 594

Not Restricted

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
AT MELBOURNE
COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

No. 5740 of 2009

SIMON SAFARO	Plaintiff
v
FRANCESCO BONARRIGO	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	VICKERY J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATES OF HEARING:	10 DECEMBER 2009
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	10 DECEMBER 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	SAFARO v BONARRIGO
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 594

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Consolidation of a new proceeding with an existing and concluded proceeding prior entry of judgment – New proceeding claiming relief consequent upon findings in the earlier proceeding – Exercise of discretion in ordering consolidation.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Ms PC Knowles	Frank Sabelberg Lawyers Pty Ltd
For the First Defendant	Mr JL Evans	White Cleland Pty

HIS HONOUR:

In this matter, I delivered my reasons in the principal proceedings on 13 November 2009, known as Porter & Anor v Bonarrigo & Anor.[1] The reasons which I deliver this afternoon should be read in conjunction with the reasons delivered in the principal proceedings.
[1][2009] VSC 500.

Since the delivery of reasons in the principal proceedings, Mr Bonarrigo has now issued a new proceeding No.SCI200910247, which I will call the new proceeding. In the new proceeding, Mr Bonarrigo, as the plaintiff, seeks payment to him of the debt which he alleges is due and payable to him by the defendant in the new proceeding, Simon Safaro.

The writ was issued on 20 November 2009. It had attached to it a statement of claim. The writ has not yet been formally served, although Ms Knowles, who appears for Mr Safaro in this application, advises me and I accept, that her solicitors were given a copy of the writ on 8 December 2009 and that she received a copy on 9 December 2009, yesterday.

The question of this debt was raised as an issue in part of the principal proceedings, namely proceeding No.5740/2009, being the claim by Simon Safaro against Mr Bonarrigo for one half of the moneys held in the common fund maintained by the Court. In that proceeding, Mr Safaro denied any entitlement of Mr Bonarrigo to these moneys.

Simon Safaro in that proceeding put in issue two elements of Mr Bonarrigo's claim in relation to the equitable charge which Mr Bonarrigo claimed. Mr Safaro denied any indebtedness to Bonarrigo and said further that even if there was such a debt, it was not secured by any equitable charge or lien over any part of the common fund or the property in respect of which the proceeds became the common fund.

In support of his first contention, Simon Safaro advanced a positive case that he was not indebted to Mr Bonarrigo and there was therefore no debt secured by any equitable charge over his half share of the moneys deposited in the common fund. The proceeding was commenced by originating motion which set out the relief claimed by Simon Safaro.

The originating motion was supported by affidavits. There were no pleadings delivered, however,…

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 Safaro v Bonarrigo

Details

AGLC: Safaro v Bonarrigo [2009] VSC 594
Case: [2009] VSC 594
Decision Date: 10 DECEMBER 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Safaro v Bonarrigo, the dispute involved the consolidation of two separate proceedings, one already concluded and the other ongoing, before a judgment was entered in the latter. The plaintiff sought to consolidate the new proceeding, which claimed relief based on findings from the earlier proceeding, with the concluded proceeding. The court was tasked with determining whether such consolidation was permissible under the circumstances.

The central legal issue before the court was whether it was appropriate to consolidate the two proceedings in the given context. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the consolidation of the new proceeding with the concluded proceeding was warranted, given that the new proceeding sought relief contingent on the findings of the earlier proceeding. The court's discretion to order consolidation was a key focus, requiring an examination of the principles governing such discretionary decisions.

The court examined the principles underlying the consolidation of proceedings and found that while the discretion to order consolidation was broad, it was not without limits. The court held that consolidation was appropriate where the proceedings were related and where justice required it. In this case, the court determined that the new proceeding was sufficiently connected to the earlier proceeding, and that consolidating the proceedings would serve the interests of justice. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to order the consolidation of the two proceedings.

The final orders of the court mandated the consolidation of the new proceeding with the concluded proceeding, allowing the plaintiff to pursue the relief sought based on the findings of the earlier proceeding. The court's decision underscored the importance of considering the relationship between the proceedings and the overarching goal of achieving justice in exercising the discretion to order consolidation.

Orders