Lym International Pty Ltd v Chen; Marcolongo v Lym International Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 1119

Lym International Pty Ltd v Chen; Marcolongo v Lym International Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 1119

The amendments were allowed except for sub pars 22(d4) and 22(d5), because those allegations as breaches of fiduciary duty would cause difficulty and potential prejudice to Yu Po Chen at the current stage of the trial. Sub pars 22(d2) and 22(d6) were also not permitted in their proposed form because they were virtually meaningless or lacking in substantive content.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Rulings / Application for Filing of an Amended Statement of Claim
Outcome
Amendment of statement of claim allowed in part, refused in part.
Legal Topics
['supreme Court Procedure' 'amendment of Statement of Claim' 'late Application' 'prejudice' 'fiduciary Duty Pleading']
['procedure' 'equity'] ['supreme Court Procedure' 'amendment of Statement of Claim' 'late Application' 'prejudice' 'fiduciary Duty Pleading']

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

Procedural and Other Rulings / Application for Filing of an Amended Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed amended statement of claim should be allowed in full or only in part.' 'Whether proposed sub pars 22(d2) and 22(d6) were virtually meaningless or lacking in content of substance.' 'Whether proposed sub pars 22(d4) and 22(d5), framed as breaches of fiduciary duty, would prejudice Yu Po Chen at the present stage of the trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

The amendments were allowed except for sub pars 22(d4) and 22(d5), because those allegations as breaches of fiduciary duty would cause difficulty and potential prejudice to Yu Po Chen at the current stage of the trial. Sub pars 22(d2) and 22(d6) were also not permitted in their proposed form because they were virtually meaningless or lacking in substantive content.

Court Disposition

Amendment of statement of claim allowed in part, refused in part.

Orders

  • ['The amendments sought were allowed, save that sub pars 22(d4) and 22(d5) were not allowed to be included in par 22 of the amended statement of claim.' 'The amendment alleging a fraudulent representation made by Amanda Chen was allowed on the basis that Yu Po Chen would be afforded further short cross-examination...