Lee v NSW Commissioner of Police (No.2) [2019] NSWSC 684

Lee v NSW Commissioner of Police (No.2) [2019] NSWSC 684

The first proposed amendment was allowed because no objection was taken. The second proposed amendment was refused because it was sought very late, the undertaking had been known to the plaintiff since at least February 2017, Detective Cruikshank's evidence did not first make the allegation's relevance obvious, and the defendants would suffer prejudice because they had lost the opportunity to re-examine Detective Cruikshank. The third proposed amendment was allowed because any possible prejudice about evidence relevant to relief could be addressed by a later procedural opportunity to call evidence if justified.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Application to Amend Second Further Amended Summons / Procedural Ruling
Outcome
First proposed amendment allowed; second proposed amendment refused; third proposed amendment allowed; Third Further Amended Summons directed to be filed.
Legal Topics
['summons' 'amendment of Summons' 'procedural Prejudice' 'client Legal Privilege' 'search Warrant']
['civil Procedure'] ['summons' 'amendment of Summons' 'procedural Prejudice' 'client Legal Privilege' 'search Warrant']

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

Application to Amend Second Further Amended Summons / Procedural Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should be permitted to amend paragraph 1(b)(v) of the Second Further Amended Summons by adding "/or" after the word "and".' "Whether the plaintiff should be permitted to amend paragraph 6(d) to add the undertaking given by Detective Cruikshank on 22 February 2017 as a circumstance surrounding the plaintiff's claim for client legal privilege." 'Whether the plaintiff should be permitted to amend paragraph 6(h) by deleting the words "and the warrant should therefore be quashed".']

Ratio Decidendi

The first proposed amendment was allowed because no objection was taken. The second proposed amendment was refused because it was sought very late, the undertaking had been known to the plaintiff since at least February 2017, Detective Cruikshank's evidence did not first make the allegation's relevance obvious, and the defendants would suffer prejudice because they had lost the opportunity to re-examine Detective Cruikshank. The third proposed amendment was allowed because any possible prejudice about evidence relevant to relief could be addressed by a later procedural opportunity to call evidence if justified.

Court Disposition

First proposed amendment allowed; second proposed amendment refused; third proposed amendment allowed; Third Further Amended Summons directed to be filed.

Orders

  • ['Direct that a Third Further Amended Summons, in a form consistent with this judgment, be filed by 4pm 10 April 2019.']