Citibank Savings Limited v Caetano & Anor; Citibank Savings Limited v De Freitas; Citibank Savings Limited v De Gouveia & Anor [1999] NSWSC 711

Citibank Savings Limited v Caetano & Anor; Citibank Savings Limited v De Freitas; Citibank Savings Limited v De Gouveia & Anor [1999] NSWSC 711

Leave to join the solicitors and file further amended statements of claim was granted because the alleged claims arose from common transactions with overlapping witnesses and issues, limitation could not appropriately be determined before the hearing, and the proposed solicitor defendants had not made out prejudice sufficient to refuse joinder.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 July 1999
Procedural Posture
Common Law Division Civil Proceedings Concerning Motions for Leave to File Further Amended Statements of Claim and Join Defendants / Interlocutory Motions
Outcome
Motions granted; costs of the motions were ordered to be costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
['filing of Amended Statements of Claim' 'joinder of Parties' 'joinder of Causes of Action' 'limitation Questions in Interlocutory Proceedings' 'prejudice From Delay' 'certificates of Independent Advice']
['civil Procedure' 'banking and Finance' 'limitation of Actions' 'contracts Review'] ['filing of Amended Statements of Claim' 'joinder of Parties' 'joinder of Causes of Action' 'limitation Questions in Interlocutory Proceedings' 'prejudice From Delay' 'certificates of Independent Advice']

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

Common Law Division Civil Proceedings Concerning Motions for Leave to File Further Amended Statements of Claim and Join Defendants / Interlocutory Motions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should have leave to file further amended statements of claim joining solicitors Tina Mary Moore and Jennifer Darin as defendants.' 'Whether the proposed claims against the solicitors were so clearly statute barred that joinder should be refused at the interlocutory stage.' 'Whether delay in seeking joinder caused prejudice sufficient to refuse leave.' 'Whether the claims arose out of common transactions with overlapping questions and witnesses such that joinder was necessary or appropriate under Pt 8 r 8 of the Supreme Court Rules (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to join the solicitors and file further amended statements of claim was granted because the alleged claims arose from common transactions with overlapping witnesses and issues, limitation could not appropriately be determined before the hearing, and the proposed solicitor defendants had not made out prejudice sufficient to refuse joinder.

Court Disposition

Motions granted; costs of the motions were ordered to be costs in the cause.

Orders

  • ['In 12120 of 1992 the plaintiff has leave to join Tina Mary Moore as second defendant and to file a further amended statement of claim within 14 days.' 'In 12179/92 the plaintiff has leave to join Tina Mary Moore as second defendant and Jennifer Darin as third defendant and to file a further amended statement of...