Bird v Bird (No 3) [2012] NSWSC 647

Bird v Bird (No 3) [2012] NSWSC 647

Leave to amend pleadings to join claims against Mona's estate is refused due to substantial prejudice to the defendants and Mona's estate, lateness of the application, and prior notice to plaintiff, whose conduct resulted in Mona not having a fair opportunity to defend.

Parties
Plaintiff: Deborah Michelle Bird; First Defendant: Warrick Lindsay Bird; Second Defendant: Rodney David Bird; Third Defendant: Herbert James Cannington; Fourth Defendant: Mona Ethel Bird
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Motion / Application to Amend Pleadings at Commencement of Hearing
Outcome
Plaintiff's motion dismissed
Legal Topics
Leave to Amend Pleadings, Joinder of Parties, Equity Procedure

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deborah Michelle Bird

Plaintiff

Warrick Lindsay Bird

First Defendant

Rodney David Bird

Second Defendant

Herbert James Cannington

Third Defendant

Mona Ethel Bird

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Motion / Application to Amend Pleadings at Commencement of Hearing

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to amend pleadings to join Mona Ethel Bird's estate and assert fresh claims
  2. 2 Whether amendments would prejudice the defendants
  3. 3 Timeliness of amendment given plaintiff's prior notice and conduct

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend pleadings to join claims against Mona's estate is refused due to substantial prejudice to the defendants and Mona's estate, lateness of the application, and prior notice to plaintiff, whose conduct resulted in Mona not having a fair opportunity to defend.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's motion dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to amend pleadings refused