Bruno Pisano -v- Georgia Dandris [2014] NSWSC 1071

Bruno Pisano -v- Georgia Dandris [2014] NSWSC 1071

The application to amend was dismissed because it was made very late, after the plaintiffs had conducted the trial on the basis of the first defendant's formal admission that statutory warranties were owed, and allowing the amendment would cause forensic prejudice and disrupt the just, quick and cheap disposition of the proceedings. In any event, the proposed contention had no realistic prospect of success because the regulation did not exempt the first defendant, who carried out work and whose role extended beyond supervision only.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Application to Amend / Eighth Day of Trial, After All Lay and Expert Evidence Had Been Completed
Outcome
Application to amend dismissed
Legal Topics
['amendment of Pleadings' 'residential Building Work' 'statutory Warranties' 'forensic Prejudice' 'just, Quick and Cheap Disposition of Proceedings']
['civil Procedure' 'building and Construction'] ['amendment of Pleadings' 'residential Building Work' 'statutory Warranties' 'forensic Prejudice' 'just, Quick and Cheap Disposition of Proceedings']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application to Amend / Eighth Day of Trial, After All Lay and Expert Evidence Had Been Completed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first defendant should be permitted to amend her defence on the eighth day of trial to raise a new contention based on Home Building Regulation 2004 (NSW).' "Whether the proposed contention had any realistic prospect of success given the first defendant's role and the operation of Home Building Regulation 2004 (NSW) reg 9."]

Ratio Decidendi

The application to amend was dismissed because it was made very late, after the plaintiffs had conducted the trial on the basis of the first defendant's formal admission that statutory warranties were owed, and allowing the amendment would cause forensic prejudice and disrupt the just, quick and cheap disposition of the proceedings. In any event, the proposed contention had no realistic prospect of success because the regulation did not exempt the first defendant, who carried out work and whose role extended beyond supervision only.

Court Disposition

Application to amend dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']