NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Bayton Cleaning Co Pty Ltd v Woods [2015] NSWSC 369 Hearing dates: 30 March 2015 Date of orders: 31 March 2015 Decision date: 31 March 2015 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Beech-Jones J Decision: (1) The defendant be granted leave to file an amended defence in the form of the draft found behind Tab 8 of the court book.
(2) The plaintiff's notice of motion dated 11 July 2014 and the amended notice of motion filed in Court on 30 March 2015 be dismissed save so far as they seek costs.
(3) Direct the parties to exchange and file written submissions on costs, which are not to exceed five pages together, with any material in support on or before 5.00 pm on 13 April 2015.
(4) Direct the parties to exchange and file any submissions in reply, which are not to exceed three pages in length, on or before 5.00 pm on 16 April 2015.
(5) Direct the parties to send electronic versions of the submissions on costs and material in support to the associate to Beech-Jones J.
(6) The proceedings be listed before a Registrar at 9:00am on 5 May 2015 for directions. Catchwords: SUMMARY JUDGMENT – loan account of company associated with ex-director – reliability of accounts – Limitation Act 1969 – whether cause of action confirmed – summary judgment refused. Legislation Cited: - Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – s 1305 - Limitation Act 1969 - s 14, s 54 - Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 – 13.1 Cases Cited: - Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC) v Rich [2005] NSWSC 417 - Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62 - Footman Bower & Co Ltd, Re [1961] 1 Ch 443 - General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) [1964] HCA 69; 112 CLR 125 - Ogilvie v Adams [1981] VR 1041 - Santos Coffee Company Pty Ltd v Direct Freight Express Pty Ltd [2010] NSWCA 14 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Bayton Cleaning Co Pty Ltd – Plaintiff Richard Woods – First Defendant RAM Nominees Pty Ltd – Second Defendant Representation: Counsel: J. Young, S. Lipp - Plaintiff S. Hartford-Davis - Defendants
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