Land Enviro Corp Pty Limited v HTT Huntley Heritage Pty Limited [2009] NSWSC 711

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Land Enviro Corp Pty Limited v HTT Huntley Heritage Pty Limited [2009] NSWSC 711

HEARING DATE(S) : 17 July 2009

JUDGMENT DATE : 28 July 2009

JUDGMENT OF : Smart AJ

DECISION : Parts of Amended Statement of Claim of 8 April 2009 struck out

CATCHWORDS : Suit to set aside settlement agreements and consent order of dismissal of 2001 proceedings - effect and operation of estoppel - claim of "deceptive conduct" leading to settlement and consent order - assessment of damages flowing from "deceptive conduct" - prior determination of what claims are presently sustainable and can be heard with application to set aside consent order and what claims must await setting aside of order - extent and assessment of damages payable arising from "deceptive conduct" - desirability of factual findings

CATEGORY : Principal judgment

Land Enviro Corp Pty Limited (First Plaintiff) Sam Zdrilic (Second Plaintiff) PARTIES : Amy Zdrilic (Third Plaintiff) Huntley Heritage Pty Limited (First Defendant) Robert Michael Renshall (Second Defendant) Devubo Pty Limited (Fifth Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 2005/07

COUNSEL : M Sneddon (Applicants, 1st, 2nd & 5th Defendants) T Jucovic SC / SA Wells (Respondents, Plaintiffs)

SOLICITORS : Gillard, Consulting Lawyers (Applicants, 1st, 2nd & 5th Defendants) Tress Cox Lawyers (Respondents, Plaintiffs)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION

Smart AJ

Tuesday 28 July 2009

2005/2007 Land Enviro Corp Pty Ltd & 3 Ors v HTT Huntley Heritage Pty Limited & 6 Ors JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: By their Notice of Motion filed 13 May 2009 the first second and fifth defendants sought an order that the plaintiffs' Further Amended Statement of Claim filed 8 April 2009 be struck out under UCPR 2005 Rule 13.4 and Rule 14.28. At the hearing the first, second and fifth defendants (HTT Huntley Heritage Pty Limited, Robert Michael Renshall and Devubo Pty Ltd) sought an order to this effect and in the alternative that paragraphs 11A – 24 and 35(aa) should be struck out. This judgment should be read with the judgments of Barrett J of 10 March 2008 and 29 January 2009. The matter has a long history but I need rehearse but a small part.