Geoffrey Francis PAGE v Hugh Stanely McKENSEY & Ors [2004] NSWCA 437

Geoffrey Francis PAGE v Hugh Stanely McKENSEY & Ors [2004] NSWCA 437

The appeal was dismissed because the orders under challenge were interlocutory and leave to appeal was refused. Leave should not be granted as the limitation period under the Limitation Act 1969 had expired by the time serious pursuit of the deceit claim began; Page either discovered or ought with reasonable...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutory Orders; Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['fraudulent Misrepresentation' 'deceit' 'res Judicata' 'limitation Periods' 'leave to Amend Pleadings' 'abuse of Process']
['civil Procedure' 'partnership' 'commercial Law'] ['fraudulent Misrepresentation' 'deceit' 'res Judicata' 'limitation Periods' 'leave to Amend Pleadings' 'abuse of Process']

Source-derived case record

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

Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutory Orders; Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal should be granted from interlocutory orders striking out statement of claim and dismissing proceedings.' 'Whether the limitation period bars the proposed deceit claim by Page.' 'Whether the appellant is estopped by res judicata or abuse of process from litigating matters previously determined.' 'Whether particulars of fraudulent misrepresentation against McKensey in 1987 are sufficiently pleaded and viable.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the orders under challenge were interlocutory and leave to appeal was refused. Leave should not be granted as the limitation period under the Limitation Act 1969 had expired by the time serious pursuit of the deceit claim began; Page either discovered or ought with reasonable diligence to have discovered the true facts in 1993. Gzell J's refusal to permit further amendment of the pleadings was not in error, and the claim as framed was doomed to fail on limitation grounds and for lack of particularity. Continuing the proceedings would prejudice the respondents and be contrary to the administration of justice given the extensive delay and procedural history.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal as against Hicks dismissed, without opposition from Page.' 'Appeal otherwise dismissed.' 'Page to pay costs of first, second and fourth respondents.']