Henderson, R.F. & Ors v Amadio Pty Ltd & Ors [1995] FCA 518

Henderson, R.F. & Ors v Amadio Pty Ltd & Ors [1995] FCA 518

Leave to appeal was refused because the ruling was an interlocutory decision on a matter of practice and procedure made during a long trial by a judge familiar with the facts and conduct of the case. The Court was not persuaded that the trial judge had made an error of the kind identified in House v The King, nor that there was anything in the facts justifying interruption of the trial by an interlocutory appeal. Any issues arising from the refusal of amendment could be addressed later, including by future pleading orders or on appeal from final orders.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 June 1995
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Order Refusing Leave to Amend Pleadings / Motion for Leave to Appeal Before the Full Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused in each motion with costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'exercise of Discretion' 'substantial Injustice' 'conduct of Long Trial']
['practice and Procedure' 'civil Procedure' 'appeals'] ['leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'exercise of Discretion' 'substantial Injustice' 'conduct of Long Trial']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Order Refusing Leave to Amend Pleadings / Motion for Leave to Appeal Before the Full Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to appeal from an interlocutory ruling refusing SGIO Insurance Limited leave to amend its defence.' 'Whether the refusal to allow amendment caused substantial or manifest injustice sufficient to justify leave to appeal.' "Whether the trial judge's discretionary decision was affected by error of the kind described in House v The King." 'Whether it was appropriate to interrupt a long trial by an interlocutory appeal on a matter of practice and procedure.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the ruling was an interlocutory decision on a matter of practice and procedure made during a long trial by a judge familiar with the facts and conduct of the case. The Court was not persuaded that the trial judge had made an error of the kind identified in House v The King, nor that there was anything in the facts justifying interruption of the trial by an interlocutory appeal. Any issues arising from the refusal of amendment could be addressed later, including by future pleading orders or on appeal from final orders.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused in each motion with costs.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal refused in each motion.' 'SGIO Insurance Limited to pay costs.']