Bateley v Land & Anor [2001] NSWSC 64

Bateley v Land & Anor [2001] NSWSC 64

The proposed amendments concerning Roche's monitoring of Justin Abrahams and the fiduciary duty allegations were sufficiently connected with the 1990 Statement of Claim and would not unduly prejudice Roche, but the unjust enrichment amendments had no prospects of success, would introduce a substantially different case involving marketing approval issues, would prejudice Roche after long delay, and did not arise out of the same or substantially the same facts for Pt 20 r 4(5). The aggravated and exemplary damages claim could be added except for paragraphs tied to the rejected unjust enrichment case.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Application to Amend the Statement of Claim / Motion in the Common Law Division Professional Negligence List
Outcome
Application to amend allowed in part and refused in part.
Legal Topics
['amendment of Statement of Claim' 'drug Trial Allegations' 'fiduciary Duty' 'unjust Enrichment' 'aggravated and Exemplary Damages' 'limitation Period' 'sale of Goods and Trade Practices Statutory Claims']
['practice and Procedure' 'professional Negligence' 'personal Injury' 'restitution' 'limitation of Actions'] ['amendment of Statement of Claim' 'drug Trial Allegations' 'fiduciary Duty' 'unjust Enrichment' 'aggravated and Exemplary Damages' 'limitation Period' 'sale of Goods and Trade Practices Statutory Claims']

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

Application to Amend the Statement of Claim / Motion in the Common Law Division Professional Negligence List

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff should be permitted to amend the Statement of Claim to plead allegations concerning Roche's monitoring of Justin Abrahams' adverse reaction to Roaccutane." 'Whether amendments alleging fiduciary duties owed by the defendants to the plaintiff should be allowed.' 'Whether proposed amendments pleading unjust enrichment or restitution against Roche should be allowed.' 'Whether the proposed new restitution cause of action arose out of the same or substantially the same facts as the existing claim for the purposes of Pt 20 r 4(5) of the Supreme Court Rules 1970.' 'Whether amendments adding a claim for aggravated and/or exemplary damages should be allowed.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed amendments concerning Roche's monitoring of Justin Abrahams and the fiduciary duty allegations were sufficiently connected with the 1990 Statement of Claim and would not unduly prejudice Roche, but the unjust enrichment amendments had no prospects of success, would introduce a substantially different case involving marketing approval issues, would prejudice Roche after long delay, and did not arise out of the same or substantially the same facts for Pt 20 r 4(5). The aggravated and exemplary damages claim could be added except for paragraphs tied to the rejected unjust enrichment case.

Court Disposition

Application to amend allowed in part and refused in part.

Orders

  • ['The plaintiff is to redraw the Amended Statement of Claim in accordance with the reasons and submit it to the Court within five days with a note that it has been shown to counsel for the second defendant and that he has no further objection to it.' 'The plaintiff is to pay the costs of the motion and any costs...