Ware v Amaral Pastoral Pty Ltd (4) [2012] NSWSC 920

Ware v Amaral Pastoral Pty Ltd (4) [2012] NSWSC 920

The application to amend was refused because the proposed pleading introduced significantly new legal standards and issues concerning reasonable care or skill, repudiation and justification for summary dismissal at a very late stage of the trial, after the plaintiff's evidence and cross-examination had concluded. Allowing the amendment would likely require an adjournment for procedural fairness, risk prejudice not shown to be curable by costs, and expand litigation costs out of proportion to the approximately $21,680.10 payment-in-lieu-of-notice claim; the delay was at best explained by an oversight in pleading preparation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Common Law Proceeding; Procedural Ruling on Defendants' Application to Amend Defence / Sixth Day of Hearing, After the Plaintiff's Case Had Closed and Cross Examination of the Plaintiff Was Complete
Outcome
Amendment refused.
Legal Topics
['amendment of Pleadings' 'late Amendment During Trial' 'summary Dismissal' 'payment in Lieu of Notice' 'prejudice and Procedural Fairness' 'proportionality of Litigation Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'employment Law' 'contract Law'] ['amendment of Pleadings' 'late Amendment During Trial' 'summary Dismissal' 'payment in Lieu of Notice' 'prejudice and Procedural Fairness' 'proportionality of Litigation Costs']

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

Common Law Proceeding; Procedural Ruling on Defendants' Application to Amend Defence / Sixth Day of Hearing, After the Plaintiff's Case Had Closed and Cross Examination of the Plaintiff Was Complete

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendants should be granted leave on the sixth day of hearing to amend their defence to plead matters said to justify the first defendant's summary dismissal of the plaintiff." 'Whether the proposed amendments introduced new legal standards and issues not raised by the existing pleadings.' 'Whether any prejudice to the plaintiff could be addressed by costs or adjournment, having regard to the late stage of the trial and the amount in issue.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application to amend was refused because the proposed pleading introduced significantly new legal standards and issues concerning reasonable care or skill, repudiation and justification for summary dismissal at a very late stage of the trial, after the plaintiff's evidence and cross-examination had concluded. Allowing the amendment would likely require an adjournment for procedural fairness, risk prejudice not shown to be curable by costs, and expand litigation costs out of proportion to the approximately $21,680.10 payment-in-lieu-of-notice claim; the delay was at best explained by an oversight in pleading preparation.

Court Disposition

Amendment refused.

Orders

  • ['The application to amend the defence was refused.']