The test for summary judgment under Rule 232(2)(a) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) is not materially different from the former test of whether there is a 'real question to be tried'; the Fancourt caution continues to apply. The approach in JT Nominees Pty Ltd v Macks, which treated Rule 232 as guided by considerations applicable to applications for immediate relief under the former Rule 25.02, was disapproved. Where parties agree that a third party will value shares or property, there is an implied term that the valuer will act honestly and impartially, and a valuation tainted by partiality or collusion is not binding. Whether the test is actual partiality or appearance of partiality remains an open question in South Australia.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 41 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 41 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.