Hofman; Sly, Powderly & Cunnington v State of New South Wales [2015] NSWSC 129

Hofman; Sly, Powderly & Cunnington v State of New South Wales [2015] NSWSC 129

The First Defendant's cross-claims for contribution are not statute-barred as the limitation period runs from the date of judgment entered against it (23 May 2014), and the amendments clarify but do not introduce new claims. There was no proper basis to refuse consent to amendment and no evidence of prejudice to the Second Defendant. The adjournment sought by the Second Defendant was refused as proper notice had been given, and no sufficient cause for adjournment was established.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion in Civil Proceedings / Interlocutory Application—leave to Amend Cross Claims and Other Directions
Outcome
Orders made granting leave to file amended cross-claims, refusing adjournment, and providing for costs and further procedural timetabling.
Legal Topics
['amendment of Cross Claims' 'limitation Period for Contribution Between Tortfeasors' 'procedural Directions in Interlocutory Hearings']
['civil Procedure' 'limitation of Actions' 'tort Law'] ['amendment of Cross Claims' 'limitation Period for Contribution Between Tortfeasors' 'procedural Directions in Interlocutory Hearings']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion in Civil Proceedings / Interlocutory Application—leave to Amend Cross Claims and Other Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the cross-claim by joint tortfeasor (First Defendant) is statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)' 'Whether leave should be granted to amend the cross-claim' 'Whether the adjournment sought by the Second Defendant should be granted']

Ratio Decidendi

The First Defendant's cross-claims for contribution are not statute-barred as the limitation period runs from the date of judgment entered against it (23 May 2014), and the amendments clarify but do not introduce new claims. There was no proper basis to refuse consent to amendment and no evidence of prejudice to the Second Defendant. The adjournment sought by the Second Defendant was refused as proper notice had been given, and no sufficient cause for adjournment was established.

Court Disposition

Orders made granting leave to file amended cross-claims, refusing adjournment, and providing for costs and further procedural timetabling.

Orders

  • ["Second Defendant's application to vacate hearing of Notices of Motion is refused." 'Leave to First Defendant in each matter to file amended cross-claims (as per annexed form omitting para 5A).' "Costs of the Motions are to be the First Defendant's costs in the cause." 'Extended time for Second Defendant to file...