Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: UTSG Pty Ltd v Sydney Metro (No 5) [2019] NSWLEC 107 Hearing dates: 25 and 26 July 2019 Date of orders: 26 July 2019 Decision date: 26 July 2019 Jurisdiction: Class 3 Before: Pepper J Decision: Hearing dates vacated. See orders at [81].
Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE: adjournment – application to vacate hearing dates in part-heard proceedings due to illness of one of the directors of the applicant – lengthy history of delay by applicant – applicant a corporate litigant in person – adequacy of medical evidence – capacity of remaining director of company to continue to run the proceedings if other director incapacitated – application to vacate reluctantly granted – consequential orders made. Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005, ss 55-60 and 66
Land and Environment Court Rules 2007, r 7.7Cases Cited: Bobolas v Waverley Council (No 3) [2015] NSWLEC 100
Bobolas v Waverley Council [2016] NSWCA 139; (2016) 92 NSWLR 406
Dillon v Gosford City Council [2011] NSWCA 328; (2011) 184 LGERA 179
Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council; Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council [2011] NSWLEC 218
Lane Cove Council v Ross (No 13) [2013] NSWLEC 80
Latoudis v Casey [1990] HCA 59; (1990) 170 CLR 534
Magjarraj v Asteron Life Limited [2009] NSWSC 1433
Pachkovski v Australian Executor Trustees Ltd [2011] NSWCA 94
Palerang Council v Banfield [2012] NSWLEC 85
Taylor v Port Macquarie Hastings Council [2010] NSWLEC 153; 175 (2010) LGERA 189
UTSG Pty Ltd v Sydney Metro (No 3) [2019] NSWLEC 49
UTSG Pty Ltd v Sydney Metro [2018] NSWLEC 128
Wingecarribee Shire Council v O’Shanassy (No 4) [2014] NSWLEC 52
Woodhouse v Thalis [2018] NSWCA 97Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: UTSG Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Sydney Metro (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Dr M Baig (Applicant)
Mr N Eastman (Respondent)
Dr M Baig (Applicant)
Ashurst (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/249637 Publication restriction:
Ex Tempore Judgment
The Applicant Seeks to Vacate Hearing Dates of a Part-Heard Matter
-
The applicant, UTSG Pty Ltd (“UTSG”), sought by way of ex parte email communication from Ms Simran Singh (a director of USTG along with Dr Mirza Baig) to the Court on 18 July 2019 at 4.55 pm (“the email”), to vacate the imminent resumption of part-heard Class 3 compensation for compulsory acquisition proceedings.
-
The matter was heard for seven days in April 2019 and was fixed to be heard for a further five days commencing 29 July 2019.
-
The vacation application was initially opposed by the respondent, Sydney Metro, however, it later resiled from this position, submitting that it was not opposed to the application provided that two conditions were met: first, that the Court order UTSG to pay its costs thrown away occasioned by the vacation; and second, that further timetabling orders were made for the future conduct of the proceedings, other than to simply set the matter down for further hearing at some distant future time. These conditions are discussed…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read UTSG Pty Ltd v Sydney Metro (No 5) 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
- [2019] NSWLEC 107
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered several key legal issues, including the proper interpretation of the termination clause within the contract, whether the alleged breaches by UTSG justified termination, and the adequacy of the remedies provided in the contract. Central to the dispute was the interpretation of the term "material breach" and whether the breaches alleged by Sydney Metro were indeed material. Additionally, the court had to determine if Sydney Metro's termination complied with the contractual requirements and if UTSG's claims for loss and damages were substantiated.
The court concluded that the breaches by UTSG were indeed material, thereby justifying the termination under the contract terms. The court found that Sydney Metro had followed the proper procedure in terminating the agreement and that the contractual remedies were sufficient. Consequently, the court dismissed UTSG's claims for loss and damages and upheld the validity of the termination. The court vacated the scheduled hearing dates, with further orders detailed in the judgment.
Orders
Orders of the court
Hearing dates vacated. See orders at [81].
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.