Tresedar Pty Limited and Ors v Property Builders (Constructions) Pty Limited
Case
•
[2013] NSWSC 1575
•18 October 2013
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Tresedar Pty Limited v Property Builders (Constructions) Pty Limited [2013] NSWSC 1575
[2013] NSWSC 1575
18 October 2013
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Tresedar Pty Limited and Ors v Property Builders (Constructions) Pty Limited was a case before the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the defendants sought summary dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims. The plaintiffs alleged breaches of an oral contract and misleading or deceptive conduct, with a written contract only recently pleaded. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs had no reasonable cause of action and that the court should dismiss the claims summarily.
The court was required to determine whether the plaintiffs' claims had any reasonable prospects of success and if the test for summary dismissal had been altered by the enactment of the Civil Procedure Act 2005, section 56. The court also had to consider the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Act, the Supreme Court Rules 1970, and the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, rule 13.4.
The court found that the plaintiffs' claims were unlikely to succeed because they were based on an oral contract, despite the existence of written contracts. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated any reasonable cause of action, and therefore, the claims should be dismissed summarily. The court noted that the test for summary dismissal had not been altered by the Civil Procedure Act 2005, section 56, and that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act, Supreme Court Rules 1970, and Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 remained applicable.
The court ordered that the defendants’ application for summary dismissal was to be granted, and the plaintiffs’ claims were to be dismissed with no orders as to costs.
The court was required to determine whether the plaintiffs' claims had any reasonable prospects of success and if the test for summary dismissal had been altered by the enactment of the Civil Procedure Act 2005, section 56. The court also had to consider the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Act, the Supreme Court Rules 1970, and the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, rule 13.4.
The court found that the plaintiffs' claims were unlikely to succeed because they were based on an oral contract, despite the existence of written contracts. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated any reasonable cause of action, and therefore, the claims should be dismissed summarily. The court noted that the test for summary dismissal had not been altered by the Civil Procedure Act 2005, section 56, and that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act, Supreme Court Rules 1970, and Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 remained applicable.
The court ordered that the defendants’ application for summary dismissal was to be granted, and the plaintiffs’ claims were to be dismissed with no orders as to costs.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Summary Judgment
-
Breach of Contract
-
Misleading or Deceptive Conduct
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0