LANDINI v. STATE OF NSW & ORS [2006] NSWSC 1054

LANDINI v. STATE OF NSW & ORS [2006] NSWSC 1054

The plaintiff is granted leave to amend the fourth further amended statement of claim, as the proposed amendments to include allegations of fabrication of evidence, perjury, and conspiracy are relevant particulars of malice and the absence of reasonable and probable cause in malicious prosecution. The amendments do not introduce new causes of action but elaborate on previously pleaded matters. The delay is sufficiently explained and does not cause prejudice that cannot be addressed, and the powers to amend under the Civil Procedure Act 2005 and relevant Australian case law favour resolution of real issues between parties.

Parties
Plaintiff: Henry Charles Landini; First Defendant: State of New South Wales; Second Defendant: Commonwealth of Australia; Fourth Defendant: Dennis Reginald Pattle; Fifth Defendant: Glen John Matinca
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Amend Statement of Claim
Outcome
Leave to amend granted; costs reserved
Legal Topics
Malicious Prosecution, Amendment of Pleadings, Conspiracy, Vicarious Liability, Fabrication of Evidence
Tort Law Civil Procedure Malicious Prosecution Amendment of Pleadings Conspiracy Vicarious Liability Fabrication of Evidence

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 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Henry Charles Landini

Plaintiff

State of New South Wales

First Defendant

Commonwealth of Australia

Second Defendant

Dennis Reginald Pattle

Fourth Defendant

Glen John Matinca

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Amend Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend the statement of claim to include allegations of fabrication of evidence, perjury, and conspiracy relating to malicious prosecution claims
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendments introduce new causes of action outside malicious prosecution
  3. 3 Whether delay in seeking amendment has prejudiced the defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff is granted leave to amend the fourth further amended statement of claim, as the proposed amendments to include allegations of fabrication of evidence, perjury, and conspiracy are relevant particulars of malice and the absence of reasonable and probable cause in malicious prosecution. The amendments do not introduce new causes of action but elaborate on previously pleaded matters. The delay is sufficiently explained and does not cause prejudice that cannot be addressed, and the powers to amend under the Civil Procedure Act 2005 and relevant Australian case law favour resolution of real issues between parties.

Court Disposition

Leave to amend granted; costs reserved

Orders

  • The plaintiff is granted leave to amend the fourth further amended statement of claim. Such amendments are to be in accordance with and to reflect the basis for the grant of leave as set out in this judgment.
  • The plaintiff is to serve a copy of the fifth further amended statement of claim upon the legal representatives of the defendants by 9.00 am Tuesday 10 October 2006.