Young v Hones (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 338

Young v Hones (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 338

No error was shown in the exercise of the primary judge's discretion to refuse the adjournment and the further amendment. The history of numerous attempts to amend, the forensic decision made by the applicant, the lateness and convoluted nature of the proposed pleading, and prejudice to the respondents justified the refusals. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused on both grounds.

Parties
Applicant/appellant: Margo Young; First Respondent: Brian Keith Hones; Second Respondent: Jason Hones; Third Respondent: Ian Hemmings; Fourth Respondent: Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd; Fifth Respondent: Stephen John Perrens
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Decisions
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Amendment of Pleadings, Interlocutory Applications, Adjournments
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Amendment of Pleadings Interlocutory Applications Adjournments

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 3 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Margo Young

Applicant/appellant

Brian Keith Hones

First Respondent

Jason Hones

Second Respondent

Ian Hemmings

Third Respondent

Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd

Fourth Respondent

Stephen John Perrens

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Decisions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the primary judge erred in refusing the adjournment application to provide an explanation for late amendment
  2. 2 Whether the primary judge erred in refusing leave to file the further amended statement of claim

Ratio Decidendi

No error was shown in the exercise of the primary judge's discretion to refuse the adjournment and the further amendment. The history of numerous attempts to amend, the forensic decision made by the applicant, the lateness and convoluted nature of the proposed pleading, and prejudice to the respondents justified the refusals. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused on both grounds.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal from refusal to adjourn hearing on 23 August 2013 refused.
  • Application for leave to appeal from refusal to allow further amended statement of claim to be filed refused.