Polsen v Harrison (No. 4) [2021] NSWSC 251

Polsen v Harrison (No. 4) [2021] NSWSC 251

The application for leave to amend was refused because the proposed amendments were extensive, introduced new causes of action and particulars late in the proceedings (after trial commenced), would cause unfair prejudice to the defendant and waste of court resources, and the plaintiff had already had ample opportunity to plead her case; the interests of justice, case management, and proportionality mandated refusal.

Parties
Plaintiff: Katrina Marie Polsen; Defendant: Dr Harrison
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Application to Amend Pleadings in Personal Injury Proceedings / Ruling on Interlocutory Application During Trial
Outcome
Application for leave to file Second Further Amended Statement of Claim is refused; costs of the application to be paid by the plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Pleadings, Amendment of Pleadings, Personal Injury, Negligence, Trespass, Battery, Case Management, Costs
Civil Procedure Pleadings Amendment of Pleadings Personal Injury Negligence Trespass Battery Case Management +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Katrina Marie Polsen

Plaintiff

Dr Harrison

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Amend Pleadings in Personal Injury Proceedings / Ruling on Interlocutory Application During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to file a Second Further Amended Statement of Claim on day 3 of trial
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendments (including new causes of action) are prejudicial to the defendant
  3. 3 Whether justice between the parties and judicial efficiency are served by permitting further amendment at this stage

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to amend was refused because the proposed amendments were extensive, introduced new causes of action and particulars late in the proceedings (after trial commenced), would cause unfair prejudice to the defendant and waste of court resources, and the plaintiff had already had ample opportunity to plead her case; the interests of justice, case management, and proportionality mandated refusal.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to file Second Further Amended Statement of Claim is refused; costs of the application to be paid by the plaintiff.

Orders

  • Leave to file the Second Further Amended Statement of Claim is refused.
  • The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs of the application.