NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : A. Nolasco Pty Limited v Green [1999] NSWSC 770 CURRENT JURISDICTION : Equity Division Construction List FILE NUMBER(S) : 55013/98 HEARING DATE(S) : 2.7.99, 9.7.99, 12.7.99 JUDGMENT DATE : 12 July 1999
PARTIES : A. Nolasco Pty Limited (Plaintiff) Richard Elliot Green (Defendant) JUDGMENT OF : Einstein J
COUNSEL : R.R.I. Harper (Plaintiff) V.F. Kerr (Defendant) SOLICITORS : Coudert Brothers (Plaintiff) Harris & Company (Defendant) CATCHWORDS : Practice and procedure - Application to strike out proceedings for failure to prosecute - Substantial non compliance by Plaintiff with directions - Breaches of undertakings given to the Court as part of security for costs regime - Construction list established to provide prompt and export resolution of construction matters - Obligation to adhere to interlocutory directions - Court in considering consequence of non compliance with directions takes into account not only the interests of individual litigants but also the Court lists and the general desirability of efficiency in the conduct of litigation - Security for costs - Principles - Order for security by Bank Guarantee DECISION : Guillotine orders providing that unless new directions and obligation to furnish Bank Guarantee complied with in terms, proceedings be dismissed with indemnity costs.
- 26 - THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION
EINSTEIN J
2, 9 and 12 July 1999 - ex tempore Revised 2 August 1999 NO 55013/98 - A NOLASCO PTY LIMITED V RICHARD ELLIOT GREEN
JUDGMENT:
1 HIS HONOUR: There is before the court for hearing an amended notice of motion filed by the defendant on 6 July 1999. The notice of motion seeks orders in the following terms: - 2A. The Plaintiff file and serve all statements, including expert reports, upon which it proposes to rely in support of its Summons by 4.00pm on 6 August 1999. 2B. The Plaintiff provide security for costs of the Defendant by way of bank guarantee in the sum of $150,000 by 23 July 1999. 2C. The proceedings stand dismissed if the Plaintiff fails to comply with either order 2A or order 2B. 2D. The Plaintiff pay the costs of the Defendant on an indemnity basis if the Plaintiff fails to comply with either order 2A or order 2B.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate