Nella, J.B. & Ors v Kingia Pty Ltd & Ors [1987] FCA 586

Nella, J.B. & Ors v Kingia Pty Ltd & Ors [1987] FCA 586

Leave was granted to amend the statement of claim as no prejudice or inconvenience would be caused, and amendments properly defined the issues for trial. Leave to administer further interrogatories and to obtain specific discovery was refused due to undue burden and lateness, particularly given the likelihood of agreement on documents and the practical alternatives available.

Parties
Applicant: John Baptist Nella; Applicant: Clifford Sydney Brown; Applicant: Barbara Sybil Brown; Applicant: Ian William Brown; First Respondent: Kingia Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Ian David Asphar; Second Respondent: Peter Anthony McComish; Second Respondent: Robert William Waters; Third Respondent: Hilldodd Pty Ltd; Fourth Respondent: Maxwell Dodd; Fifth Respondent: Maurice Howard Hill; Sixth Respondent: Stanley Ronald Layton; Cross Claimant: Kingia Pty Ltd; Cross Respondent: Hilldodd Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 October 1987
Procedural Posture
Motion / Interlocutory
Outcome
Leave to amend the statement of claim granted; leave for further interrogatories and specific discovery refused; costs of the motion awarded to the respondents.
Legal Topics
Leave to Amend Statement of Claim, Interrogatories, Discovery, Costs
Practice and Procedure Leave to Amend Statement of Claim Interrogatories Discovery Costs

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Baptist Nella

Applicant

Clifford Sydney Brown

Applicant

Barbara Sybil Brown

Applicant

Ian William Brown

Applicant

Kingia Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Ian David Asphar

Second Respondent

Peter Anthony McComish

Second Respondent

Robert William Waters

Second Respondent

Hilldodd Pty Ltd

Third Respondent

Maxwell Dodd

Fourth Respondent

Maurice Howard Hill

Fifth Respondent

Stanley Ronald Layton

Sixth Respondent

Kingia Pty Ltd

Cross Claimant

Hilldodd Pty Ltd

Cross Respondent

Procedural Posture

Motion / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to further amend the statement of claim
  2. 2 Whether leave should be granted to administer further interrogatories shortly before trial
  3. 3 Whether the applicants should be granted specific discovery of documents

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was granted to amend the statement of claim as no prejudice or inconvenience would be caused, and amendments properly defined the issues for trial. Leave to administer further interrogatories and to obtain specific discovery was refused due to undue burden and lateness, particularly given the likelihood of agreement on documents and the practical alternatives available.

Court Disposition

Leave to amend the statement of claim granted; leave for further interrogatories and specific discovery refused; costs of the motion awarded to the respondents.

Orders

  • The applicants have leave to amend the re-amended statement of claim in terms of the further substituted re-amended statement of claim annexed to the motion.
  • The filing and service of the substituted re-amended statement of claim be dispensed with.