Danthanarayana v GR8 Constructions Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 1263

Danthanarayana v GR8 Constructions Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 1263

Leave to amend was granted because the proposed amended pleading made clear that the applicants sought to recover from each allegedly defaulting builder only the loss properly attributable to that builder's breaches, excluded losses attributable to Solve from the claim against GR8 and the other respondents, was not inconsistent with the pleading in the Solve proceeding, did not duplicate the claims against Solve, and was sufficiently detailed to be pleaded to. Although the applicants' delay and failure to promptly disclose the true nature of the dispute with Solve were unsatisfactory, refusing the amendments would cause substantial injustice by depriving the applicants of a fair...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure Application for Leave to Amend Statement of Claim / Decided on the Papers; Interlocutory Application for Leave to Amend
Outcome
Application for leave to amend granted, with costs consequences against the applicants.
Legal Topics
['leave to Amend Pleadings' 'abuse of Process' 'inconsistent Pleadings' 'duplication of Claims' 'delay and Case Management' 'costs Thrown Away']
['practice and Procedure' 'building and Construction'] ['leave to Amend Pleadings' 'abuse of Process' 'inconsistent Pleadings' 'duplication of Claims' 'delay and Case Management' 'costs Thrown Away']

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 Statement of Claim / Decided on the Papers; Interlocutory Application for Leave to Amend

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should grant leave to the applicants to amend their Second Further Amended Statement of Claim in accordance with the Revised Second Further Amended Statement of Claim.' 'Whether the allegations in the proposed amended pleading, considered with the pleading in the related Solve proceeding, constituted an abuse of process.' "Whether the proposed amended pleading was inconsistent with the applicants' pleading in the Solve proceeding." 'Whether there was duplication between the claims made against GR8 and the claims made against Solve.' "Whether delay, lack of diligence, or the applicants' conduct in not promptly disclosing the dispute with Solve justified refusing leave to amend." 'Whether the proposed amended pleading was sufficiently particularised and not bad in form.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend was granted because the proposed amended pleading made clear that the applicants sought to recover from each allegedly defaulting builder only the loss properly attributable to that builder's breaches, excluded losses attributable to Solve from the claim against GR8 and the other respondents, was not inconsistent with the pleading in the Solve proceeding, did not duplicate the claims against Solve, and was sufficiently detailed to be pleaded to. Although the applicants' delay and failure to promptly disclose the true nature of the dispute with Solve were unsatisfactory, refusing the amendments would cause substantial injustice by depriving the applicants of a fair...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to amend granted, with costs consequences against the applicants.

Orders

  • ['The applicants have leave to amend their Second Further Amended Statement of Claim dated and filed on 26 October 2012 in accordance with the draft pleading entitled Revised Second Further Amended Statement of Claim served upon the solicitors for the respondents on 6 November 2012 (the ASC).' "The applicants pay...