Tripathi v Tiwary & Anor (No. 2) [2023] NSWDC 633

Tripathi v Tiwary & Anor (No. 2) [2023] NSWDC 633

The original pleading, although inelegant, pleaded the lendings relied upon by the Plaintiff, including the amounts and dates, and attempted to plead money lent. Because all necessary facts for an action in debt were initially pleaded, the Further Amended Statement of Claim did not require a ruling under Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 64(3) or 65(3). Even if such an order were required, the discretion would be exercised because the lendings relied upon had been initially pleaded.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling Concerning Whether Civil Procedure Act 2005 (nsw), Ss 64 and 65 Were Required After Leave Was Granted to File and Serve a Further Amended Statement of Claim
Outcome
Ruling under Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 64 and 65 not required.
Legal Topics
['amendment of Pleadings' 'action in Debt' 'money Lent' 'common Counts' 'civil Procedure Act 2005 (nsw), Ss 64 and 65']
['civil Procedure' 'contract Law'] ['amendment of Pleadings' 'action in Debt' 'money Lent' 'common Counts' 'civil Procedure Act 2005 (nsw), Ss 64 and 65']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling Concerning Whether Civil Procedure Act 2005 (nsw), Ss 64 and 65 Were Required After Leave Was Granted to File and Serve a Further Amended Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Further Amended Statement of Claim filed on 24 March 2023 raised new causes of action such that a ruling under Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 64 or 65 was required.' 'Whether the original pleading sufficiently pleaded the facts necessary for a claim in debt for money lent.']

Ratio Decidendi

The original pleading, although inelegant, pleaded the lendings relied upon by the Plaintiff, including the amounts and dates, and attempted to plead money lent. Because all necessary facts for an action in debt were initially pleaded, the Further Amended Statement of Claim did not require a ruling under Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 64(3) or 65(3). Even if such an order were required, the discretion would be exercised because the lendings relied upon had been initially pleaded.

Court Disposition

Ruling under Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 64 and 65 not required.

Orders

  • []