Gazzana v Santamaria (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 264

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Gazzana v Santamaria (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 264 Hearing dates: 16 March 2017 Decision date: 16 March 2017 Jurisdiction: Equity Before: Ball J Decision: The defendants' notice of motion filed 6 February 2017 is dismissed. Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application to reopen proceedings – whether defendant should be allowed to raise further issues – whether matter should be referred to independent accountant PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – judgment and orders – final orders Cases Cited: Gazzana v Santamaria [2015] NSWSC 916 Gazzana v Santamaria (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1555 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Antonio Gazzana (Plaintiff) Antonino Santamaria (First Defendant) Antonio Santamaria Excavation and Demolition Pty Ltd (Second Defendant) Representation: Counsel: C Bolger (Plaintiff) S Russo, Solicitor (Defendants)

Solicitors: Chatswood Law (Plaintiff) Russo & Partners (Defendants) File Number(s): 2013/52967 Publication restriction: None

Judgment

Introduction 1. On 16 March 2017, I made final orders in this matter. Before doing so, I heard an application by the defendants. The application was treated as having been made by a notice of motion filed in court by the defendants on 6 February 2017. However, that notice of motion merely sought an adjournment of the proceedings for a minimum period of four weeks. What the defendants really sought was to reopen the case and to have issues that they had only raised recently referred to an expert accountant, presumably acting as a referee for enquiry and report. I dismissed that application and indicated that I would give my reasons for doing so later. These are those reasons.