Schacht v Thompson and Staunton trading as Staunton & Thompson Lawyers (No. 2) [2012] NSWSC 169

Schacht v Thompson and Staunton trading as Staunton & Thompson Lawyers (No. 2) [2012] NSWSC 169

The application to further amend the Defence to raise s.90K(1)(d) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) was refused as it was brought too late, would be unfair to the Plaintiff, and contrary to the principles of proper case management and fair notice of issues.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence Claim / Interlocutory Application Regarding Amendment of Defence
Outcome
Defendants' application refused
Legal Topics
['amendment of Pleadings' 'professional Negligence' 'leave to Amend Defence']
['practice and Procedure'] ['amendment of Pleadings' 'professional Negligence' 'leave to Amend Defence']

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

Professional Negligence Claim / Interlocutory Application Regarding Amendment of Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Defendants should be granted leave to further amend the Defence to rely on s.90K(1)(d) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)']

Ratio Decidendi

The application to further amend the Defence to raise s.90K(1)(d) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) was refused as it was brought too late, would be unfair to the Plaintiff, and contrary to the principles of proper case management and fair notice of issues.

Court Disposition

Defendants' application refused

Orders

  • ["Defendants' further application to rely upon paragraph 26(b)(iv) of the pleading filed on 22 February 2012 is refused."]