Scott v Pedler [2002] FCA 164

Scott v Pedler [2002] FCA 164

Leave to amend the statement of claim by addition of paragraph 27.1 was refused because it amounted to pleading evidence and not material facts and was directed at DSS officers generally rather than the respondents specifically. Leave to amend the reply by adding paragraph 32 (excluding the sub-subparagraphs (ii) and (iii)) was granted as it was a legitimate response to a contributory negligence defence. Leave was granted to rely on the joint affidavit sworn on 4 February 2002.

Parties
First Applicant: Ralph Scott; Second Applicant: Sophie Scott; First Respondent: Officer Toni Lee-Anne Pedler, Department of Social Security; Second Respondent: Officer Julie A Williams, Department of Social Security; Third Respondent: Authorised Review Officer, Roberta Chrystal, Department of Social Security
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion in Ongoing Proceeding / Interlocutory Application Regarding Pleadings
Outcome
Application to amend statement of claim refused; application to amend reply allowed in part; leave to rely on affidavit granted; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Pleadings, Amendment of Statement of Claim, Reply to Defence, Contributory Negligence
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Pleadings Amendment of Statement of Claim Reply to Defence Contributory Negligence

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ralph Scott

First Applicant

Sophie Scott

Second Applicant

Officer Toni Lee-Anne Pedler, Department of Social Security

First Respondent

Officer Julie A Williams, Department of Social Security

Second Respondent

Authorised Review Officer, Roberta Chrystal, Department of Social Security

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion in Ongoing Proceeding / Interlocutory Application Regarding Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants should be granted leave to amend the statement of claim by the addition of paragraph 27.1
  2. 2 Whether applicants should be granted leave to amend their reply by the addition of paragraph 32
  3. 3 Whether applicants should be granted leave to rely on a supplementary affidavit

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend the statement of claim by addition of paragraph 27.1 was refused because it amounted to pleading evidence and not material facts and was directed at DSS officers generally rather than the respondents specifically. Leave to amend the reply by adding paragraph 32 (excluding the sub-subparagraphs (ii) and (iii)) was granted as it was a legitimate response to a contributory negligence defence. Leave was granted to rely on the joint affidavit sworn on 4 February 2002.

Court Disposition

Application to amend statement of claim refused; application to amend reply allowed in part; leave to rely on affidavit granted; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to amend the statement of claim by the addition of par 27.1 be dismissed.
  • The applicants have leave to amend their reply by the addition of par 32 in specified terms.