McCrohon v Leodaritsis [2020] NSWSC 1537

McCrohon v Leodaritsis [2020] NSWSC 1537

Leave to amend and join the second respondent was appropriate because there was a satisfactory explanation for delay, the proposed amendments were not shown to be futile, unviable, untenable, or deficient in form or substance, any prejudice to the existing defendant was limited to costs thrown away, and granting leave was consistent with the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues and the dictates of justice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion Seeking Leave to File an Amended Statement of Claim and Join a Proposed Second Defendant / Procedural Application for Amendment and Joinder
Outcome
Leave granted to file and serve the amended statement of claim; second respondent to be joined as second defendant; plaintiffs to pay the first defendant's costs thrown away by the amendment.
Legal Topics
['amendment of Pleadings' 'joinder of Defendant' 'undischarged Bankrupt' 'costs Thrown Away' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct']
['civil Procedure' 'bankruptcy' 'australian Consumer Law'] ['amendment of Pleadings' 'joinder of Defendant' 'undischarged Bankrupt' 'costs Thrown Away' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct']

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 Seeking Leave to File an Amended Statement of Claim and Join a Proposed Second Defendant / Procedural Application for Amendment and Joinder

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to file and serve the amended statement of claim.' 'Whether the proposed second defendant should be joined to the proceedings despite being an undischarged bankrupt.' 'Whether delay and costs prejudice to the first defendant warranted refusing leave or adjourning the motion.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend and join the second respondent was appropriate because there was a satisfactory explanation for delay, the proposed amendments were not shown to be futile, unviable, untenable, or deficient in form or substance, any prejudice to the existing defendant was limited to costs thrown away, and granting leave was consistent with the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues and the dictates of justice.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to file and serve the amended statement of claim; second respondent to be joined as second defendant; plaintiffs to pay the first defendant's costs thrown away by the amendment.

Orders

  • ['Give leave to the plaintiffs/applicants to file and serve the amended statement of claim annexed to the notice of motion filed on 7 September 2020.' 'Direct that the amended statement of claim be filed and served within seven days.' 'Note that the second respondent will, by the filing of the amended statement of...