Levy v Bablis & Anor [2009] NSWSC 890

Levy v Bablis & Anor [2009] NSWSC 890

Leave to amend was refused because the proposed undue influence and illegitimate pressure pleading, advanced on day one of the trial, would likely require the first defendant to reconsider evidence, forensic decisions, potential cross-claims and particulars, causing unfairness and substantial delay which could not adequately be cured by costs or an adjournment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Procedural Ruling on Proposed Amendment to Statement of Claim in Equity Proceedings / Application During Opening of Trial to Amend the Third Further Amended Statement of Claim
Outcome
The Court declined to allow the amendment to the proposed Third Further Amended Statement of Claim.
Legal Topics
['undue Influence' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'delay and Adjournment' 'unfairness to Defendant']
['equity' 'civil Procedure'] ['undue Influence' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'delay and Adjournment' 'unfairness to Defendant']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Procedural Ruling on Proposed Amendment to Statement of Claim in Equity Proceedings / Application During Opening of Trial to Amend the Third Further Amended Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should be permitted to amend the Third Further Amended Statement of Claim to plead presumed undue influence, actual undue influence and related illegitimate pressure.' 'Whether allowing the amendment on day one of the trial would cause unfairness to the first defendant and substantial delay to the hearing.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend was refused because the proposed undue influence and illegitimate pressure pleading, advanced on day one of the trial, would likely require the first defendant to reconsider evidence, forensic decisions, potential cross-claims and particulars, causing unfairness and substantial delay which could not adequately be cured by costs or an adjournment.

Court Disposition

The Court declined to allow the amendment to the proposed Third Further Amended Statement of Claim.

Orders

  • ['I decline to allow the amendment to the extent that in paragraphs 45 and 46 it pleads causes of action based on presumed undue influence, actual undue influence and related illegitimate pressure.']