Woods v Woods [2000] NSWSC 179

Woods v Woods [2000] NSWSC 179

Although the application to amend was made late and would cause prejudice, the proposed amended cross claim was not shown to be bound to fail, the plaintiffs' prejudice could be ameliorated by costs orders, further hearing in the proceedings remained necessary, and refusal might lead to further proceedings and complex estoppel arguments. The amendment was therefore allowed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 February 2000
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion for Amendment of Cross Claim / Application to Amend Cross Claim After Hearing of Substantive Issues and Judgment as to the Parties' Rights, But Before Final Determination of Relief
Outcome
Application to amend cross claim granted.
Legal Topics
['amendment of Cross Claim' 'delay' 'prejudice' 'costs Thrown Away' 'supreme Court Procedure']
['civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['amendment of Cross Claim' 'delay' 'prejudice' 'costs Thrown Away' 'supreme Court Procedure']

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 for Amendment of Cross Claim / Application to Amend Cross Claim After Hearing of Substantive Issues and Judgment as to the Parties' Rights, But Before Final Determination of Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the first defendant should be granted leave to file an amended cross claim after judgment as to the parties' rights." 'Whether the proposed amended cross claim was futile and bound to fail.' 'Whether the late amendment would cause prejudice to the plaintiffs that could not be compensated by costs or other consequential orders.' 'Whether allowing the amendment would be contrary to the administration of justice.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the application to amend was made late and would cause prejudice, the proposed amended cross claim was not shown to be bound to fail, the plaintiffs' prejudice could be ameliorated by costs orders, further hearing in the proceedings remained necessary, and refusal might lead to further proceedings and complex estoppel arguments. The amendment was therefore allowed.

Court Disposition

Application to amend cross claim granted.

Orders

  • ['The first defendant is granted leave to file the amended cross claim.' "The first defendant is to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the motion." "The first defendant is to pay the plaintiffs' costs thrown away by the allowance of the amendment." 'The application for leave to assess and enforce those costs orders...