Smith v Wikramanayake [2007] NSWSC 117

Smith v Wikramanayake [2007] NSWSC 117

Given the forensic prejudice to the defendants, no imminent sale of the relevant property, the undertaking by defendants not to raise estoppel in future proceedings, and minimal prejudice to the plaintiffs apart from potential costs, justice was best served by refusing the application for adjournment.

Parties
First Plaintiff / First Cross Defendant: David Smith; Second Plaintiff / Second Cross Defendant: John James; Third Plaintiff / Third Cross Defendant: Plus 55 Village Management (Albury) Pty Limited; First Defendant / First Cross Claimant: Margaret Anne Wikramanayake; Second Defendant / Second Cross Claimant: Prenitha Srimath Wikramanayake; Third Defendant / Third Cross Claimant: Wagga Road Properties Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Application / Final Day of Hearing
Outcome
Application for adjournment refused
Legal Topics
Application for Adjournment, Forensic Prejudice, Amendment of Pleadings, Undertakings Regarding Estoppel
Civil Law Practice and Procedure Application for Adjournment Forensic Prejudice Amendment of Pleadings Undertakings Regarding Estoppel

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Smith

First Plaintiff / First Cross Defendant

John James

Second Plaintiff / Second Cross Defendant

Plus 55 Village Management (Albury) Pty Limited

Third Plaintiff / Third Cross Defendant

Margaret Anne Wikramanayake

First Defendant / First Cross Claimant

Prenitha Srimath Wikramanayake

Second Defendant / Second Cross Claimant

Wagga Road Properties Pty Limited

Third Defendant / Third Cross Claimant

Procedural Posture

Application / Final Day of Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to adjourn proceedings to allow amendment to pleadings to add a declaration regarding profit sharing agreement
  2. 2 Whether defendants would suffer forensic prejudice if adjournment granted

Ratio Decidendi

Given the forensic prejudice to the defendants, no imminent sale of the relevant property, the undertaking by defendants not to raise estoppel in future proceedings, and minimal prejudice to the plaintiffs apart from potential costs, justice was best served by refusing the application for adjournment.

Court Disposition

Application for adjournment refused