Lisa Maree Campbell as Administrator ad litem of the Estate of the Late Ralph Gordon Barry Campbell v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2014] NSWCA 316

Lisa Maree Campbell as Administrator ad litem of the Estate of the Late Ralph Gordon Barry Campbell v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2014] NSWCA 316

No error by the primary judge in granting leave to amend was established, as the amendment was primarily a legal argument, the delay did not result in demonstrated prejudice, and the applicant failed to show error on discretionary grounds.

Parties
First Applicant: Lisa Maree Campbell as Administrator ad litem of the Estate of the Late Ralph Gordon Barry Campbell; Second Applicant: Pamela Jean Campbell; First Respondent: Commonwealth Bank of Australia; Second Respondent: Gregory William Campbell; Third Respondent: Jennifer Ivy Campbell
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Application for Leave
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Priority of Interests, Subrogation, Contracts Review, Delay and Prejudice in Litigation
Civil Procedure Property Law Bankruptcy Amendment of Pleadings Priority of Interests Subrogation Contracts Review Delay and Prejudice in Litigation

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lisa Maree Campbell as Administrator ad litem of the Estate of the Late Ralph Gordon Barry Campbell

First Applicant

Pamela Jean Campbell

Second Applicant

Commonwealth Bank of Australia

First Respondent

Gregory William Campbell

Second Respondent

Jennifer Ivy Campbell

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Application for Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the grant of leave to file a further amended statement of claim was made in error
  2. 2 Whether the amendments only amounted to a different claim in law
  3. 3 Whether prejudice would be occasioned to the defendants due to late amendment

Ratio Decidendi

No error by the primary judge in granting leave to amend was established, as the amendment was primarily a legal argument, the delay did not result in demonstrated prejudice, and the applicant failed to show error on discretionary grounds.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave is dismissed.
  • The applicants should pay the respondents' costs.