Stokes v Toyne

[2023] NSWCA 59

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Abuse of process
3. › Permanent stay of proceedings
4. › Subsequent proceedings raising same issues as earlier proceedings
5. › Whether District Court proceedings for damages constituted abuse of process where vendor had relied on same alleged losses in earlier Equity Division proceedings
6. › Whether unjustifiable oppression to defending party
7. › Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 56
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Estoppel
3. › Anshun estoppel
4. › Cross-claims not brought in earlier proceedings
5. › Whether unreasonable for vendor not to bring cross-claim for damages in proceedings for return of deposit
6. › Relationship between claim for return of deposit under s 55(2A) Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) and vendor's claim for damages for breach of contract
7. › Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Procedural fairness
3. › Interlocutory proceedings
4. › Refusal of leave to cross-examine
5. › Whether denial of procedural fairness where evidence subsequently treated as 'unchallenged'
6. › Whether subjective circumstances relevant to Anshun estoppel and abuse of process
1. Evidence
2. › Cross-examination
3. › Leave to cross-examine on affidavit
4. › Interlocutory proceedings
5. › Whether evidence correctly described as 'unchallenged' where leave to cross-examine refused

Quick Take

Vendors who resist a purchaser's claim for return of a deposit on the basis of alleged losses should consider bringing a cross-claim for damages in the same proceedings, as failure to do so may give rise to Anshun estoppel or abuse of process barring subsequent proceedings for those damages.