Carey-Hazell v Getz Bros & Co (Aust) Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 96

Carey-Hazell v Getz Bros & Co (Aust) Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 96

Leave to amend the statement of claim to add particulars of injury and pain and suffering based on Dr Bernstein's report was not granted as the report was deficient and the respondents would be prejudiced by the inability to respond with their own expert evidence. Leave to amend was granted only in relation to...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Karen Carey-Hazell; First Respondent: Getz Bros & Co (Aust) Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Peter Thompson; Third Respondent: Trevor Nicholls
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Amend Statement of Claim / Interlocutory
Outcome
Leave to amend granted in part; leave refused in relation to contentious matters and specified paragraphs; expert report of Dr Bernstein not accepted in evidence.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Admissibility of Expert Evidence
Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Admissibility of Expert Evidence

Source-derived case record

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karen Carey-Hazell

Applicant

Getz Bros & Co (Aust) Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Peter Thompson

Second Respondent

Trevor Nicholls

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Amend Statement of Claim / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to further amend her statement of claim to include particulars of injury and pain and suffering based on a recent expert report
  2. 2 Whether the respondents would be prejudiced by the late amendment or the reliance upon the new expert report

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend the statement of claim to add particulars of injury and pain and suffering based on Dr Bernstein's report was not granted as the report was deficient and the respondents would be prejudiced by the inability to respond with their own expert evidence. Leave to amend was granted only in relation to non-contentious matters that could reasonably be addressed by the respondents, with specific paragraphs excluded.

Court Disposition

Leave to amend granted in part; leave refused in relation to contentious matters and specified paragraphs; expert report of Dr Bernstein not accepted in evidence.

Orders

  • The applicant have leave to amend the statement of claim in accordance with the proposed minute of the second further amended statement of claim save for paragraphs 42(g), 43(c)(iii), (ix), (xiv) and (xvi).