Bailey v Bailey [2006] NSWSC 756

Bailey v Bailey [2006] NSWSC 756

Leave to file the proposed second further amended statement of claim was refused because the proposed pleading breached basic rules of pleading, was in many respects impossible to plead to, mixed material facts with particulars, evidence and legal contentions, and attempted to introduce new or inconsistent causes of action, some of which would be statute-barred.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Amend Pleadings / Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion for Leave to File a Second Further Amended Statement of Claim
Outcome
Leave to amend refused; notice of motion dismissed; plaintiffs ordered to pay the defendants' costs.
Legal Topics
['amendment to Pleadings' 'rules of Pleading' 'material Facts and Particulars' 'new Causes of Action' 'limitation of Actions' 'partnership Accounts']
['practice and Procedure' 'civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['amendment to Pleadings' 'rules of Pleading' 'material Facts and Particulars' 'new Causes of Action' 'limitation of Actions' 'partnership Accounts']

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

Application for Leave to Amend Pleadings / Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion for Leave to File a Second Further Amended Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiffs should be granted leave to file a second further amended statement of claim.' 'Whether the proposed pleading complied with basic rules of pleading, including pleading material facts in summary form and separately from particulars, evidence and legal contentions.' 'Whether proposed new claims, including Rosewood West loan claims, partnership accounts, unjust enrichment, water licence claims and fiduciary duty allegations, should be permitted despite being new, contradictory or statute-barred.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to file the proposed second further amended statement of claim was refused because the proposed pleading breached basic rules of pleading, was in many respects impossible to plead to, mixed material facts with particulars, evidence and legal contentions, and attempted to introduce new or inconsistent causes of action, some of which would be statute-barred.

Court Disposition

Leave to amend refused; notice of motion dismissed; plaintiffs ordered to pay the defendants' costs.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion be dismissed.' "The plaintiffs pay the defendants' costs."]