Rosenbaum v Baidarman [2020] NSWSC 699

Rosenbaum v Baidarman [2020] NSWSC 699

Leave to make the contested amendments was refused because the amendments would in substance raise a new claim for an account of the Omega Unit Trust from 1 July 2007 without pleading supporting facts or identifying the orders, declarations or findings sought; they would likely require further pleading, evidence, possible further cross-examination, and notice to parties who had filed submitting appearances; they would probably prevent completion of the 14-day hearing and risk adjournment into 2021; the proceeding had already been on foot for eight years; the prejudice and inconvenience to Mr Baidarman could not be adequately compensated by costs; and no adequate explanation was given for...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Amend Pleadings / During Hearing
Outcome
Leave granted for uncontested amendments to the Defence to Amended Cross-Claim; leave refused for the contested amendments.
Legal Topics
['leave to Amend Pleadings' 'defence to Amended Cross Claim' 'trust Accounts' 'partnership Accounts' 'delay and Case Management']
['practice and Procedure' 'equity'] ['leave to Amend Pleadings' 'defence to Amended Cross Claim' 'trust Accounts' 'partnership Accounts' 'delay and Case Management']

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 / During Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to the first to fourth cross-defendants to amend their Defence to Amended Cross-Claim where some amendments were opposed by the cross-claimant.' 'Whether contested amendments seeking to deny an alleged 2009 agreement and to seek an account of the Omega Unit Trust from 1 July 2007 would cause delay and prejudice during an ongoing hearing.' 'Whether procedural fairness required notice to Ella Baidarman and Dabjade Pty Ltd before amendments affecting their interests were allowed.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to make the contested amendments was refused because the amendments would in substance raise a new claim for an account of the Omega Unit Trust from 1 July 2007 without pleading supporting facts or identifying the orders, declarations or findings sought; they would likely require further pleading, evidence, possible further cross-examination, and notice to parties who had filed submitting appearances; they would probably prevent completion of the 14-day hearing and risk adjournment into 2021; the proceeding had already been on foot for eight years; the prejudice and inconvenience to Mr Baidarman could not be adequately compensated by costs; and no adequate explanation was given for...

Court Disposition

Leave granted for uncontested amendments to the Defence to Amended Cross-Claim; leave refused for the contested amendments.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to the cross-defendants to make certain uncontested amendments to the Defence to Amended Cross-Claim.' 'Refuse leave to amend in respect of the balance of the proposed amendments.' "Dismiss Mr Rosenbaum's claim for damages for loss of opportunity pleaded in prayer 5 and paragraphs 132 to 138 of the...