Khan as Trustee for The Khan Family Trust v Hadid; Hadid v Khan as Trustee for The Khan Family Trust (No 3) [2008] NSWSC 819

Khan as Trustee for The Khan Family Trust v Hadid; Hadid v Khan as Trustee for The Khan Family Trust (No 3) [2008] NSWSC 819

Leave to amend was refused as granting leave would cause irreparable injustice to Mr Hancock, who had suffered tactical prejudice from having given evidence only on the issues then pleaded. Am Re had full opportunity to plead dishonesty earlier and did not. The insurance policy covers Mr Hancock's liability because it arises from his private legal practice, and contribution between wrongdoers is equal, not based on relative culpability.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Consequential Orders Proceedings / Post Judgment Orders and Written Submissions
Outcome
Verdict and judgment for the defendants and on various cross-claims; leave to amend denied for Am Re; declaration of mortgage void; orders for removal of mortgage and caveat; orders for indemnity and costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Amend Pleadings' 'professional Indemnity Insurance' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'damages' 'contribution Among Wrongdoers']
['civil Procedure' 'insurance Law' 'contract Law'] ['leave to Amend Pleadings' 'professional Indemnity Insurance' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'damages' 'contribution Among Wrongdoers']

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

Consequential Orders Proceedings / Post Judgment Orders and Written Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the professional indemnity insurance policy covers Mr Hancock's liability." 'Whether Am Re should be granted leave to amend its defence to allege dishonesty.' 'Principles applicable to contribution and indemnity among multiple liable parties.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend was refused as granting leave would cause irreparable injustice to Mr Hancock, who had suffered tactical prejudice from having given evidence only on the issues then pleaded. Am Re had full opportunity to plead dishonesty earlier and did not. The insurance policy covers Mr Hancock's liability because it arises from his private legal practice, and contribution between wrongdoers is equal, not based on relative culpability.

Court Disposition

Verdict and judgment for the defendants and on various cross-claims; leave to amend denied for Am Re; declaration of mortgage void; orders for removal of mortgage and caveat; orders for indemnity and costs.

Orders

  • ['Verdict and judgment for first and second defendants against the plaintiff in 10537/2003.' 'Verdict and judgment for first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh defendants against plaintiffs in 20052/2003.' 'Declaration that registered mortgage number 9253502J is void and of no effect.' 'Order to have mortgage...