Skelton v Evers [2023] NSWSC 570

Skelton v Evers [2023] NSWSC 570

Leave to file a further amended statement of claim is refused because the proposed pleading does not adequately articulate a cause of action against the third defendant, particularly as to causation. The loss claimed occurred in the 1990s, well before the alleged acts/omissions of the third defendant in 2004, and it cannot be shown that the third defendant’s conduct caused the loss.

Parties
Plaintiff: Brett Skelton; Third Defendant: Michael Evers
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil / Procedural Ruling on Notice of Motion for Leave to File Further Amended Statement of Claim
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed. Leave to file further amended statement of claim refused. No further motions for leave to amend to be filed. Proceedings at an end.
Legal Topics
Commencement of Proceedings, Statement of Claim, Self Represented Litigant, Leave to Amend Pleadings
Civil Procedure Commencement of Proceedings Statement of Claim Self Represented Litigant Leave to Amend Pleadings

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brett Skelton

Plaintiff

Michael Evers

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Procedural Ruling on Notice of Motion for Leave to File Further Amended Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to the plaintiff to file a further amended statement of claim against the third defendant
  2. 2 Whether the proposed statement of claim adequately pleads a cause of action in breach of fiduciary duty or negligence against the third defendant

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to file a further amended statement of claim is refused because the proposed pleading does not adequately articulate a cause of action against the third defendant, particularly as to causation. The loss claimed occurred in the 1990s, well before the alleged acts/omissions of the third defendant in 2004, and it cannot be shown that the third defendant’s conduct caused the loss.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed. Leave to file further amended statement of claim refused. No further motions for leave to amend to be filed. Proceedings at an end.

Orders

  • The notice of motion is dismissed.
  • Leave to file a further amended statement of claim is not granted.