Griffiths v Ballard [2006] NSWSC 245

Griffiths v Ballard [2006] NSWSC 245

Leave is granted for the plaintiff to file the Second Further Amended Statement of Claim as it particularises the Commonwealth’s liability beyond vicarious liability; proceedings against the first defendant are dismissed due to witness immunity; paragraphs identified are struck out to effect earlier rulings; stay of proceedings is refused as delays would prejudice the plaintiff and issues should be defined by pleadings for any further appeal; costs are apportioned to reflect partial success and close relationship between Commonwealth and Mr Ballard.

Parties
Appellant: John Henry Griffiths; First Respondent: Peter Ballard; Second Respondent: Commonwealth of Australia; Third Defendant: State of New South Wales
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Costs, Witness Immunity, Strike Out, Leave to Amend Pleading, Stay of Proceedings
Civil Procedure Tort Law Costs Witness Immunity Strike Out Leave to Amend Pleading Stay of Proceedings

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Henry Griffiths

Appellant

Peter Ballard

First Respondent

Commonwealth of Australia

Second Respondent

State of New South Wales

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to file a Second Further Amended Statement of Claim
  2. 2 Whether proceedings against the first defendant should be dismissed
  3. 3 Whether certain paragraphs of the Further Amended Statement of Claim should be struck out

Ratio Decidendi

Leave is granted for the plaintiff to file the Second Further Amended Statement of Claim as it particularises the Commonwealth’s liability beyond vicarious liability; proceedings against the first defendant are dismissed due to witness immunity; paragraphs identified are struck out to effect earlier rulings; stay of proceedings is refused as delays would prejudice the plaintiff and issues should be defined by pleadings for any further appeal; costs are apportioned to reflect partial success and close relationship between Commonwealth and Mr Ballard.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • The orders of Associate Justice Harrison issued on 25 August 2004 are quashed.
  • Leave is granted to the plaintiff to file the Further Amended Statement of Claim attached to the affidavit of John Edmund Michael O'Connor of 26 July 2004.