Hamod v State of New South Wales (No 9) [2008] NSWSC 518

Hamod v State of New South Wales (No 9) [2008] NSWSC 518

The application was dismissed because the existing sixth amended statement of claim had governed the proceedings since 2004, the proposed seventh amended statement of claim was unstructured, confusing, prolix and burdensome, the only substantive new cause of action was defamation which had long been available and had previously been considered and not pleaded, there was no evidence supporting any relevant incapacity preventing earlier pleading, and permitting the amendment less than two weeks before the hearing would be unfair and an abuse of process.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure Application for Leave to Amend Pleadings / Notice of Motion by Plaintiffs to File a Seventh Amended Statement of Claim Shortly Before Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Plaintiffs' application to file a seventh amended statement of claim dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['amendment of Pleadings' 'statement of Claim' 'leave to Amend' 'abuse of Process' 'late Amendment' 'unrepresented Litigant']
['civil Procedure' 'defamation'] ['amendment of Pleadings' 'statement of Claim' 'leave to Amend' 'abuse of Process' 'late Amendment' 'unrepresented Litigant']

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

Civil Procedure Application for Leave to Amend Pleadings / Notice of Motion by Plaintiffs to File a Seventh Amended Statement of Claim Shortly Before Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiffs should be granted leave to file a seventh amended statement of claim within one month of an eight week hearing.' 'Whether the proposed pleading of a defamation cause of action should be permitted where the events occurred in the mid-1990s and prior pleadings had not included defamation.' 'Whether the proposed 357 page pleading containing 1,119 paragraphs was unfair, prolix and an abuse of process at that late stage.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the existing sixth amended statement of claim had governed the proceedings since 2004, the proposed seventh amended statement of claim was unstructured, confusing, prolix and burdensome, the only substantive new cause of action was defamation which had long been available and had previously been considered and not pleaded, there was no evidence supporting any relevant incapacity preventing earlier pleading, and permitting the amendment less than two weeks before the hearing would be unfair and an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' application to file a seventh amended statement of claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The present application is dismissed with costs.']