Mango Capital v Patsis (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 762

Mango Capital v Patsis (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 762

Leave to amend was granted because, despite delay, the unchallenged evidence established that representative error lay at the heart of the delayed application and that Mango Capital had not sought any advantage in the proceedings. In light of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), including the overriding purpose and the requirement to make necessary amendments to determine the real questions and avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the Court was satisfied that leave should be granted, with Mango Capital bearing costs thrown away by Mr and Mrs Patsis.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Claim for Possession of Property; Notice of Motion Seeking Leave to Amend Statement of Claim / Hearing of Motion for Leave to Amend Statement of Claim
Outcome
Leave sought to amend statement of claim granted.
Legal Topics
['leave to Amend Statement of Claim' 'overriding Purpose' 'delay' 'representative Error' 'costs']
['civil Procedure'] ['leave to Amend Statement of Claim' 'overriding Purpose' 'delay' 'representative Error' 'costs']

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

Claim for Possession of Property; Notice of Motion Seeking Leave to Amend Statement of Claim / Hearing of Motion for Leave to Amend Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mango Capital should be granted leave to amend its statement of claim after delay caused by representative error.' 'Whether granting leave to amend was consistent with the overriding purpose of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).' 'What costs orders should be made as a result of the amendment application.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend was granted because, despite delay, the unchallenged evidence established that representative error lay at the heart of the delayed application and that Mango Capital had not sought any advantage in the proceedings. In light of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), including the overriding purpose and the requirement to make necessary amendments to determine the real questions and avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the Court was satisfied that leave should be granted, with Mango Capital bearing costs thrown away by Mr and Mrs Patsis.

Court Disposition

Leave sought to amend statement of claim granted.

Orders

  • ['Mango Capital was granted leave to file the amended statement of claim.' 'As to the second cross-defendant Nick Khosh, costs of the motion were to be costs in the cause.' 'As to Mr and Mrs Patsis, Mango Capital was to bear the considerable costs thrown away as a result of the errors of its legal representatives,...