Australia, Aug. 21 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on July 21:

1. The parties to these proceedings are in dispute about their arrangements for the ownership, and entitlement to the profits, of a service station business. It should have been a relatively straightforward matter. It has not proven to be so.

2. The plaintiff/cross-defendants are SNS Petro Pty Ltd and Mr Shobhit Saigal. The defendant/cross-claimant is Mr Gaurav Goel.

3. These proceedings were commenced as long ago as 2019. The plaintiffs and their solicitors have conducted them in a manner that has been, to use the candid description of counsel who briefly appeared for them in the matter, "atrocious". As a result of that conduct, the Court ultimately dismissed the plaintiffs' claim and defence to Mr Goel's cross-claim.

4. Even the significance of those dismissals appears to have been lost on the plaintiffs and their advisors, such that counsel who was belatedly briefed to appear on what had become an undefended hearing of the cross-claim was caught unawares. After an unsuccessful attempt to obtain an adjournment and revive the plaintiffs' claims, that counsel, who apparently had not been fully informed about the procedural history, withdrew and the Court heard the cross-claim.

5. For the reasons set out in [91] below and following, there will be judgment for Mr Goel on his cross-claim against Mr Saigal in the sum of $248,113.61 together with pre-judgment interest. However, before coming to that, it will be necessary to explain in some detail how the plaintiffs' claims and defences were brought to an end.

Procedural History

6. The proceedings were commenced by a summons filed on 6 March 2019.

7. On 15 March 2019, the plaintiffs were ordered to serve a commercial list statement by 29 March 2019. In an early sign of what was to come, they failed to do so. On 3 May 2019, the proceedings were dismissed with costs by Hammerschlag J (as his Honour then was).

8. The plaintiffs' filed a motion in the Commercial List for the orders made on 3 May 2019 to be set aside. That was heard by Hammerschlag J on 17 May 2019. The defendant's lawyers had gone off the record two weeks before. The matter was stood over for the defendant to obtain legal representation.

9. On 12 June 2019, the Court set aside the dismissal order made on 3 May 2019, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the motion to set the dismissal aside.

10. The plaintiffs filed a commercial list statement on 26 June 2019. The defendant filed a commercial list response on 9 August 2019, and a cross-claim on 9 September 2019.

11. Orders were made on 20 September 2019 allowing the plaintiffs to request further and better particulars of the cross-claim by 27 September 2019, and file their defence to the cross-claim by 18 October 2019.

12. On 25 October 2019, the plaintiffs sought an adjournment because they were in default of the orders made on 20 September 2019. The extension of time to request better and further particulars and file the defence to the cross-claim was opposed by the defendant. Ball J (as his Honour then was) refused to grant the plaintiffs an adjournment. Orders were made for the plaintiffs to file a response to the cross-claim by 8 November 2019 and for the service of lay evidence in chief by 29 November 2019.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1982bbbbdb1b4bac94e9ea91)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.