DC v McDonnell [2017] NSWSC 1403

DC v McDonnell [2017] NSWSC 1403

The Court refused leave to amend the Statement of Claim as sought because the amendments were late, there was no adequate explanation for their lateness, and allowing the amendments would cause significant prejudice to the defendant due to the unavailability of key witnesses.

Parties
Plaintiff: DC; Defendant: Kevin Sylvester McDonnell
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure – Motion to Amend Statement of Claim / Interlocutory (motion to Amend Pleadings)
Outcome
Plaintiff's Notice of Motion dismissed. Plaintiff ordered to pay defendant's costs of the Motion.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Historic Sexual Abuse, Interests of Justice, Prejudice, Explanation for Lateness of Amendment
Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Historic Sexual Abuse Interests of Justice Prejudice Explanation for Lateness of Amendment

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DC

Plaintiff

Kevin Sylvester McDonnell

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure – Motion to Amend Statement of Claim / Interlocutory (motion to Amend Pleadings)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to permit a late amendment to the Statement of Claim concerning allegations of historic sexual abuse, where key witnesses are deceased and no adequate explanation for the lateness is provided.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused leave to amend the Statement of Claim as sought because the amendments were late, there was no adequate explanation for their lateness, and allowing the amendments would cause significant prejudice to the defendant due to the unavailability of key witnesses.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's Notice of Motion dismissed. Plaintiff ordered to pay defendant's costs of the Motion.

Orders

  • Notice of Motion of the plaintiff filed 9 October 2017 is dismissed.
  • The plaintiff is ordered to pay the defendant’s costs of the Motion.