Emery v Hunter Valley Cranes [1999] NSWSC 306

Emery v Hunter Valley Cranes [1999] NSWSC 306

Although the fourth defendant should have discovered earlier that it had named the wrong cross-defendant and the error arose from lack of proper inquiry, the proposed cross-defendant filed no evidence of actual prejudice, had previously been a party, shared solicitors with the existing cross-defendant, had opportunities for investigation, and could obtain material from the plaintiff. Any presumptive prejudice from delay was not given great weight, so the fourth defendant discharged its onus and relief was granted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 April 1999
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion in Personal Injury Proceedings Seeking Relief Pursuant to Part 20 of the Supreme Court Rules for Mistake in the Name of a Party to a Cross Claim / Opposed Application Heard on 26 March 1999; Detailed Reasons After Decision Granted
Outcome
Granted
Legal Topics
['mistake in the Name of a Party' 'cross Claim' 'contribution and Indemnity' 'prejudice From Delay' 'costs of Application']
['civil Procedure' 'personal Injury' 'limitation of Actions'] ['mistake in the Name of a Party' 'cross Claim' 'contribution and Indemnity' 'prejudice From Delay' 'costs of Application']

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

Notice of Motion in Personal Injury Proceedings Seeking Relief Pursuant to Part 20 of the Supreme Court Rules for Mistake in the Name of a Party to a Cross Claim / Opposed Application Heard on 26 March 1999; Detailed Reasons After Decision Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should grant relief pursuant to Part 20 of the Supreme Court Rules on the basis that there had been a mistake in the name of the cross-defendant to the Cross-Claim.' 'Whether delay by the fourth defendant caused prejudice sufficient to refuse the relief sought.' 'Who should bear the costs of the application.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the fourth defendant should have discovered earlier that it had named the wrong cross-defendant and the error arose from lack of proper inquiry, the proposed cross-defendant filed no evidence of actual prejudice, had previously been a party, shared solicitors with the existing cross-defendant, had opportunities for investigation, and could obtain material from the plaintiff. Any presumptive prejudice from delay was not given great weight, so the fourth defendant discharged its onus and relief was granted.

Court Disposition

Granted

Orders

  • ['Order 1 as sought in the Notice of Motion filed in Court on 26 March 1999.' 'Any Amended Cross Claim is to be filed within 14 days.' 'The fourth defendant is to pay the costs of the application.']