Grundy, Arthur Henry & Anor v Lewis, John Bertram & Ors Headship Pty Ltd & Anor v Grundy, Arthur Henry & Ors [1998] FCA 1212

Grundy, Arthur Henry & Anor v Lewis, John Bertram & Ors Headship Pty Ltd & Anor v Grundy, Arthur Henry & Ors [1998] FCA 1212

The court refused leave to amend as it would be unjust to the applicants, given the lateness of the amendment, the prejudice and additional strain and costs to them, and the manner in which the case was prepared; the balance of justice favored the applicants under the circumstances, distinguishing this case from JL Holdings.

Parties
Applicant: Arthur Henry Grundy; Applicant: Rita Nell Grundy; First Respondent: John Bertram Lewis; Second Respondent: Headship Pty Ltd ACN 010 645 708; Third Respondent: Chamberg Pty Ltd; Fourth Respondent: Graeme Arthur Schmidt; Fourth Respondent: Peter Thomas Maker; First Cross Claimant: Headship Pty Ltd ACN 010 645 708; Second Cross Claimant: Chamberg Pty Ltd; First Cross Respondent: Arthur Henry Grundy; First Cross Respondent: Rita Nell Grundy; Second Cross Respondent: Earle Grundy
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 September 1998
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application (amendment to Defence)
Outcome
application to amend refused
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Case Management, Prejudice to Parties
Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Case Management Prejudice to Parties

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arthur Henry Grundy

Applicant

Rita Nell Grundy

Applicant

John Bertram Lewis

First Respondent

Headship Pty Ltd ACN 010 645 708

Second Respondent

Chamberg Pty Ltd

Third Respondent

Graeme Arthur Schmidt

Fourth Respondent

Peter Thomas Maker

Fourth Respondent

Headship Pty Ltd ACN 010 645 708

First Cross Claimant

Chamberg Pty Ltd

Second Cross Claimant

Arthur Henry Grundy

First Cross Respondent

Rita Nell Grundy

First Cross Respondent

Earle Grundy

Second Cross Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application (amendment to Defence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the fourth respondents should be granted leave to further amend their defence to allege the applicants compromised their claim on 11 July 1994.

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused leave to amend as it would be unjust to the applicants, given the lateness of the amendment, the prejudice and additional strain and costs to them, and the manner in which the case was prepared; the balance of justice favored the applicants under the circumstances, distinguishing this case from JL Holdings.

Court Disposition

application to amend refused

Orders

  • The application to further amend the fourth respondents' defence by the addition of a proposed paragraph 14A is refused.
  • The application is dismissed.