Ridgley-Hewitt v Ridgley-Hewitt [2017] NSWSC 483

Ridgley-Hewitt v Ridgley-Hewitt [2017] NSWSC 483

The balance of convenience favoured hearing the matter in the Northern Rivers District. Leave to amend the cross-claim was appropriate because the proposed amendments clarified BHFD's status and more specifically identified particulars of negligence against Juno and BHFD; they did not expand the case or add a new case. Allowing the amendments was consistent with the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues, no hearing date had been set, and any prejudice from the lateness of the application could be addressed by requiring HRH to pay the costs of the notice of motion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Rulings Concerning Notices of Motion in Common Law Proceedings / Determination of Notices of Motion Seeking Change of Hearing Venue and Leave to File an Amended Statement of Cross Claim
Outcome
Leave was granted to the First Defendant/Cross-Claimant to file the Amended Statement of Cross-Claim; the First Defendant/Cross-Claimant was ordered to pay the costs of the notice of motion; case management directions and liberty to obtain a 10 day hearing date in Lismore were ordered.
Legal Topics
['amendment of Cross Claim' 'change of Venue' 'case Management' 'costs of Notice of Motion']
['civil Procedure' 'negligence'] ['amendment of Cross Claim' 'change of Venue' 'case Management' 'costs of Notice of Motion']

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 Concerning Notices of Motion in Common Law Proceedings / Determination of Notices of Motion Seeking Change of Hearing Venue and Leave to File an Amended Statement of Cross Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the venue of the hearing should be changed to the Northern Rivers District under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 8.2 and Practice Note No SC CL 1.' 'Whether the First Defendant/Cross-Claimant should be granted leave and an extension of time to file an Amended Statement of Cross-Claim.' 'Whether any prejudice arising from the late amendment should be addressed by costs, including whether costs of the December 2016 mediation should be ordered.']

Ratio Decidendi

The balance of convenience favoured hearing the matter in the Northern Rivers District. Leave to amend the cross-claim was appropriate because the proposed amendments clarified BHFD's status and more specifically identified particulars of negligence against Juno and BHFD; they did not expand the case or add a new case. Allowing the amendments was consistent with the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues, no hearing date had been set, and any prejudice from the lateness of the application could be addressed by requiring HRH to pay the costs of the notice of motion.

Court Disposition

Leave was granted to the First Defendant/Cross-Claimant to file the Amended Statement of Cross-Claim; the First Defendant/Cross-Claimant was ordered to pay the costs of the notice of motion; case management directions and liberty to obtain a 10 day hearing date in Lismore were ordered.

Orders

  • ['Leave is granted to the First Defendant/Cross Claimant to file its Amended Statement of Cross Claim in the form annexed to the affidavit of Ms Arnold, sworn 2 March 2017 within 14 days, i.e. on or before 21 April 2017.' 'The First Defendant/Cross Claimant to pay the costs of the notice of motion.' 'The matter is...