Ness v Stevenson [2020] NSWSC 631

Ness v Stevenson [2020] NSWSC 631

Leave to amend and adjournment applications were refused because the proposed amendments would add unnecessary parties and allegations, delay proceedings, and introduce claims not properly particularised or amenable to judicial review; leave to file proposed statement of claim was refused as it was vexatious and embarrassing; costs awarded to defendants given findings and nature of plaintiff's notice of motion.

Parties
Plaintiff: Kristel Ness; First Defendant: Andrew Stevenson; Second Defendant: Catherine Brennan; Third Defendant: New South Wales Department of Education; Fourth Defendant: Local Court of New South Wales
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion and Amendment/adjournment Applications in Judicial Review Proceedings / Ex Tempore Ruling on Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed; leave to amend and file statement of claim refused; costs awarded to first, second and third defendants.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Amendment Application, Adjournment Application, Costs, Statement of Claim, Vexatious Pleadings
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Judicial Review Amendment Application Adjournment Application Costs Statement of Claim Vexatious Pleadings

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kristel Ness

Plaintiff

Andrew Stevenson

First Defendant

Catherine Brennan

Second Defendant

New South Wales Department of Education

Third Defendant

Local Court of New South Wales

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion and Amendment/adjournment Applications in Judicial Review Proceedings / Ex Tempore Ruling on Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to amend summons to add parties and relief
  2. 2 Whether leave should be granted to adjourn hearing date
  3. 3 Whether leave to file proposed statement of claim seeking damages for torts should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend and adjournment applications were refused because the proposed amendments would add unnecessary parties and allegations, delay proceedings, and introduce claims not properly particularised or amenable to judicial review; leave to file proposed statement of claim was refused as it was vexatious and embarrassing; costs awarded to defendants given findings and nature of plaintiff's notice of motion.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed; leave to amend and file statement of claim refused; costs awarded to first, second and third defendants.

Orders

  • The notice of motion filed 15 May 2020 be dismissed.
  • Leave to file the proposed statement of claim be refused.