The Court held that that when a defendant signals reliance on a prior deed of release or consent judgment, the plaintiff must promptly articulate their position and any intended application to set aside those instruments, or risk an adverse interlocutory costs order. Failure to respond to pre-litigation correspondence or to plead around known defences may be treated as inconsistent with the overriding purpose provisions of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).
The full text is available to signed-in members.