Permanent Custodians Ltd v Adzioski [2013] NSWSC 804

Permanent Custodians Ltd v Adzioski [2013] NSWSC 804

The proposed cross-claims went beyond necessary formal amendments and sought to introduce new causes of action shortly before trial. The material supporting those new claims could have been pleaded against Iden earlier, no adequate evidence or explanation was provided for the delay, the proceedings had already experienced delays by the Defendants, and allowing the amendments created presumptive prejudice and a strong chance the matter would not be ready for the fixed hearing date.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Applications / First and Second Defendants' Applications to Serve Amended Cross Claims
Outcome
First and Second Defendants' applications to serve amended cross-claims in the form requested refused.
Legal Topics
['amendment of Pleadings' 'cross Claims' 'late Application to Amend' 'case Management']
['civil Procedure'] ['amendment of Pleadings' 'cross Claims' 'late Application to Amend' 'case Management']

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

Interlocutory Applications / First and Second Defendants' Applications to Serve Amended Cross Claims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the First and Second Defendants should be permitted to file amended cross-claims introducing new causes of action about one month before the hearing.' 'Whether the proposed amendments were justified by late-served evidence or documents and whether any lack of expedition was adequately explained.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed cross-claims went beyond necessary formal amendments and sought to introduce new causes of action shortly before trial. The material supporting those new claims could have been pleaded against Iden earlier, no adequate evidence or explanation was provided for the delay, the proceedings had already experienced delays by the Defendants, and allowing the amendments created presumptive prejudice and a strong chance the matter would not be ready for the fixed hearing date.

Court Disposition

First and Second Defendants' applications to serve amended cross-claims in the form requested refused.

Orders

  • ['The application to amend the cross-claims in the form requested is refused.' "Leave is given to the Defendants to amend the cross-claims only to make formal changes given Iden's new position as Plaintiff in the proceedings."]