Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Young v King (No 10) [2016] NSWLEC 70 Hearing dates: 18 May 2016 Date of orders: 10 June 2016 Decision date: 10 June 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 4 Before: Sheahan J Decision: Two stay applications are dismissed with costs.
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Stays of Proceedings – principles to apply – outstanding questions of costs – personal costs orders – substantive decisions presently under appeal – stays refused – costs. Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005
Legal Profession Act 1987Cases Cited: Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak; Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Najem (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 130
Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd (1985) 2 NSWLR 685
Candler v Crane Christmas & Co [1951] 2 KB 164
Degiorgio v Dunn (No 2) [2005] NSWSC 3
Kalifair Pty Ltd v Digi-Tech (Australia) Ltd [2002] NSWCA 383; 55 NSWLR 737
Lemoto v Able Technical Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 153; 63 NSWLR 300
Levick v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2000] FCA 674; (2000) 102 FCR 155
Medcalf v Mardell [2002] UKHL 27; [2003] 1 AC 120
New South Wales Bar Association v Murphy [2002] NSWCA 138; (2002) 55 NSWLR 23
Patrick v Capital Finance Corp (Australasia) Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1249
Ridehalgh v Horsefield [1994] Ch 205
TCN Channel 9 Pty Ltd v Antoniadis [No 2] [1999] NSWCA 104; 48 NSWLR 381
Vaughan v Dawson [2008] NSWCA 169
Young v Hones (No 3) [2014] NSWSC 499
Young v Hughes Trueman Pty Limited [2016] FCCA 989
Young v King (No 4) [2012] NSWLEC 236
Young v King (No 6) [2015] NSWLEC 111
Young v King (No 8) [2015] NSWLEC 187
Young v King (No 9) [2016] NSWLEC 4Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Margo Young (Applicant)
Brendan King (First respondent)
Kristina King (Second respondent)
Jason Hones (Third respondent)
Hones Lawyers (Fourth respondent)
Ian Hemmings (Fifth respondent)
Stephen Perrens (Sixth respondent)
Hughes Trueman Pty Limited (Seventh respondent)
Warwick Davies (Eighth respondent)
Stephen Noel Griffiths (Ninth respondent)
Robert Charles Springett (Tenth respondent)
Michael Brearley (Eleventh respondent)
Ross Fraser (Twelfth respondent)
Tony Tuxworth (Thirteenth respondent)
Copland Lethbridge (Fourteenth respondent)
Bee & Lethbridge Pty Limited (Fifteenth respondent)
Geoff Goodyer (Sixteenth respondent)
Victor Schubert (Seventeenth respondent)
Warringah Shire Council (Eighteenth respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr R Newell, solicitor (Applicant)
Mr M Wright, barrister (First & second respondents)
No Appearance (Third & fourth respondents)
Ms S Reid, solicitor (Fifth and seventeenth respondents)
Mr S Gray, barrister (Sixth & seventh respondents)
Mr T Faulkner, SC (Eighth respondent)
No Appearance (Ninth respondent)
No Appearance (Tenth respondent)
Mr B Lim, barrister (Eleventh, fourteenth, fifteenth & sixteenth respondents)
Ms J Reid, barrister (Twelfth respondent)
Ms T Mandic, solicitor (Thirteenth respondent)
No Appearance (Eighteenth respondent)
Mr D Lloyd, barrister (for Leonardo Muriniti and L C Muriniti & Associates)
Mr N Andrew, solicitor (for Robert Newell as a barrister)
L C Muriniti & Associates (Applicant)
Stern Law (First & second respondents)
Colin Biggers & Paisley Pty Ltd (Third…
Continue reading Young v King (No 10)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Young v King (No 10) [2016] NSWLEC 70
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 70
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicants in this case were Young and King, who were engaged in a dispute over a property development project in Sydney. The matter came before the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the applicants sought to stay proceedings that had been commenced in the Local Court. The applicants argued that the issues raised in the Local Court proceedings were the same as those in the Supreme Court, and that it would be more appropriate for the Supreme Court to hear them. The respondents opposed the stay applications, arguing that the matters in the Local Court were distinct from those in the Supreme Court, and that the applicants were attempting to delay the proceedings.
The legal issues before the court were whether the matters in the Local Court proceedings were the same as those in the Supreme Court, and whether it was appropriate for the Supreme Court to stay the proceedings. The court considered the pleadings and evidence in both sets of proceedings, and found that the matters were not the same. The court held that the applicants had not demonstrated that it was appropriate for the Supreme Court to stay the proceedings, and that the respondents had not shown any prejudice that would warrant the imposition of costs.
As a result, the court dismissed the stay applications and ordered the applicants to pay the respondents' costs. The court held that the matters in the Local Court proceedings were distinct from those in the Supreme Court, and that the applicants had not demonstrated that it was appropriate for the Supreme Court to stay the proceedings. The court further held that the respondents had not shown any prejudice that would warrant the imposition of costs. The applicants' stay applications were dismissed, and the respondents were awarded their costs.
The legal issues before the court were whether the matters in the Local Court proceedings were the same as those in the Supreme Court, and whether it was appropriate for the Supreme Court to stay the proceedings. The court considered the pleadings and evidence in both sets of proceedings, and found that the matters were not the same. The court held that the applicants had not demonstrated that it was appropriate for the Supreme Court to stay the proceedings, and that the respondents had not shown any prejudice that would warrant the imposition of costs.
As a result, the court dismissed the stay applications and ordered the applicants to pay the respondents' costs. The court held that the matters in the Local Court proceedings were distinct from those in the Supreme Court, and that the applicants had not demonstrated that it was appropriate for the Supreme Court to stay the proceedings. The court further held that the respondents had not shown any prejudice that would warrant the imposition of costs. The applicants' stay applications were dismissed, and the respondents were awarded their costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Two stay applications are dismissed with costs.
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.