HARTNETT v TRUSTEES OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH FOR THE DIOCESE OF WILCANNIA-FORBES (3) [2024] NSWSC 126

HARTNETT v TRUSTEES OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH FOR THE DIOCESE OF WILCANNIA-FORBES (3) [2024] NSWSC 126

The explanation for delay in seeking the amendment was full, frank, and satisfactory, being the inadvertence of counsel, and there was no incurable forensic prejudice to the first defendant because, by virtue of a Heads of Agreement, all defendants were to contribute equally to any damages regardless of judgment. Leave was granted to amend except for paragraphs that would require the first defendant to respond to a new allegation of employment, which would cause significant forensic prejudice.

Parties
Plaintiff: Albert John Hartnett; First Defendant: Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Wilcannia-Forbes; Second Defendant: Trustee of the Marist Brothers; Third Defendant: Mercy Support Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Procedural Ruling (application to Amend Pleadings in Personal Injury Claim) / Mid Hearing (after Plaintiff's Lay Evidence, Before Close of Plaintiff's Case)
Outcome
Leave to amend granted in part
Legal Topics
Pleadings Amendment, Vicarious Liability, Negligence, Forensic Prejudice
Civil Procedure Tort Law Pleadings Amendment Vicarious Liability Negligence Forensic Prejudice

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Albert John Hartnett

Plaintiff

Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Wilcannia-Forbes

First Defendant

Trustee of the Marist Brothers

Second Defendant

Mercy Support Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Procedural Ruling (application to Amend Pleadings in Personal Injury Claim) / Mid Hearing (after Plaintiff's Lay Evidence, Before Close of Plaintiff's Case)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to the plaintiff to amend the Statement of Claim to add new allegations of vicarious liability against the first defendant
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendment would cause forensic prejudice to the first defendant
  3. 3 Whether the explanation for delay in seeking amendment was satisfactory under s 64 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)

Ratio Decidendi

The explanation for delay in seeking the amendment was full, frank, and satisfactory, being the inadvertence of counsel, and there was no incurable forensic prejudice to the first defendant because, by virtue of a Heads of Agreement, all defendants were to contribute equally to any damages regardless of judgment. Leave was granted to amend except for paragraphs that would require the first defendant to respond to a new allegation of employment, which would cause significant forensic prejudice.

Court Disposition

Leave to amend granted in part

Orders

  • Grant leave to the plaintiff to file and rely on the Third Further Amended Statement of Claim save for paragraphs 16J to 16N inclusive.