Carpenter v Morris [2020] NSWSC 1264

Carpenter v Morris [2020] NSWSC 1264

Although the defendants gave no explanation for the delay in seeking leave to plead the limitation amendments, the plaintiffs did not show real prejudice from the late amendments, conceded that the amendments would not change the manner in which they would conduct the final hearing, and did not suggest that the hearing would need to be vacated or could not be completed within the listed time. The proposed amendments raised real issues and were not shown to lack utility. In those circumstances, the overriding purpose and the dictates of justice warranted granting leave to amend, with costs orders for costs thrown away and costs of the motion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure Application for Leave to Amend Pleadings / Notice of Motion by the First and Fourth to Seventh Defendants for Leave to Amend Their Defences on the First Day of the Final Hearing
Outcome
Leave granted to the first and fourth to seventh defendants to amend their defences to the Further Amended Statement of Claim filed on 17 May 2019.
Legal Topics
['leave to Amend Pleadings' 'late Amendment' 'overriding Purpose' 'limitation Defences' 'settled Accounts' 'taking of Partnership Accounts']
['civil Procedure' 'equity' 'limitation of Actions' 'partnership'] ['leave to Amend Pleadings' 'late Amendment' 'overriding Purpose' 'limitation Defences' 'settled Accounts' 'taking of 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

Practice and Procedure Application for Leave to Amend Pleadings / Notice of Motion by the First and Fourth to Seventh Defendants for Leave to Amend Their Defences on the First Day of the Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the first defendant should be granted leave to amend his defence to plead that the plaintiffs' claims for damages for breach of contract, equitable compensation or restitution on a quantum meruit are barred by s 14 of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)." "Whether the fourth defendant should be granted leave to amend its defence to plead a defence of settled accounts to the plaintiffs' claim for taking of accounts of the Morris Carpenter Partnership." "Whether the fourth defendant should be granted leave to amend its defence to plead that s 15 of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) applies in equity by analogy to the plaintiffs' claim for an order for the taking of accounts." 'Whether the delay, absence of explanation, asserted prejudice, and utility of the amendments justified refusing leave to amend.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the defendants gave no explanation for the delay in seeking leave to plead the limitation amendments, the plaintiffs did not show real prejudice from the late amendments, conceded that the amendments would not change the manner in which they would conduct the final hearing, and did not suggest that the hearing would need to be vacated or could not be completed within the listed time. The proposed amendments raised real issues and were not shown to lack utility. In those circumstances, the overriding purpose and the dictates of justice warranted granting leave to amend, with costs orders for costs thrown away and costs of the motion.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to the first and fourth to seventh defendants to amend their defences to the Further Amended Statement of Claim filed on 17 May 2019.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to the first defendant to amend his defence to the Further Amended Statement of Claim by making the amendments shown in the proposed Amended Defence of the first defendant in Annexure "A" to the affidavit of Mr Gayler sworn on 8 September 2020.' 'Grant leave to the fourth defendant to amend its defence...