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.
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
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave should be granted to amend pleadings to join Mona Ethel Bird's estate and assert fresh claims
- 2 Whether amendments would prejudice the defendants
- 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
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment