NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Court of Appeal
CITATION: Bi v Mourad [2010] NSWCA 17
HEARING DATE(S): 11 February 2010 JUDGMENT OF: Allsop P at [1]; Young JA at [2]; Sackville AJA at [37]
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 11 February 2010
DECISION: (1) Leave to appeal is refused. (2) The applicants to pay the opponents' costs.
CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE- dismissal for want of prosecution- policy as disclosed in Civil Procedure Act 2005, ss 56-60- relevance of pre-2005 authority- paramount necessity of paying careful attention to ss 56-60- individual justice requires the elimination of undue delay- District Court Judicial Registrar dismissing proceedings on basis of plaintiffs' late reformulation of case and late production of amended (but defective) pleadings- review of appeal sought on different grounds- Judicial Registrar entitled to reach the conclusions reached.
LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Procedure Act 2005, ss 56-60 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r12.7
Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27; (2009) 239 CLR 175 CASES CITED: Hans Pet Constructions Pty Limited v Cassar [2009] NSWCA 230 Hoser v Hartcher [1999] NSWSC 527 House v R [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499
Shao Chun Bi (First Applicant) Da Kang Ma (Second Applicant) PARTIES: Wei Bi (Third Applicant) George Mourad (First Opponent) Mourad Constructions Pty Ltd (Second Opponent) Lagrange Corporation Pty Ltd (Third Opponent)
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 2009/00298355
COUNSEL: C Jackson (Applicants) J S Drummond (Opponents)
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