Winters v Fogarty [2018] FCA 1669

Winters v Fogarty [2018] FCA 1669

Leave to file the Further Amended Statement of Claim and Further Amended Reply was refused on the basis that the amendment applications were made without adequate explanation for delay, would cause substantial prejudice to the respondent, jeopardise the timely completion of the trial, and case management principles weighed strongly against granting leave.

Parties
Applicant: Leila Winters; Respondent: Basil Michael Fogarty; Intervener: Australian Human Rights Commission
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Leave to Amend Pleadings (statement of Claim and Reply) at Commencement of Trial
Outcome
Application for leave to amend dismissed; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Case Management, Prejudice, Leave to Amend, Discrimination, Capacity
Practice and Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Case Management Prejudice Leave to Amend Discrimination Capacity

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leila Winters

Applicant

Basil Michael Fogarty

Respondent

Australian Human Rights Commission

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application for Leave to Amend Pleadings (statement of Claim and Reply) at Commencement of Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to file Further Amended Statement of Claim and Further Amended Reply
  2. 2 Whether substantial delay, lack of adequate explanation, and prejudice to respondent warrant refusal of leave
  3. 3 Whether case management considerations weigh against granting leave

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to file the Further Amended Statement of Claim and Further Amended Reply was refused on the basis that the amendment applications were made without adequate explanation for delay, would cause substantial prejudice to the respondent, jeopardise the timely completion of the trial, and case management principles weighed strongly against granting leave.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to amend dismissed; costs reserved.

Orders

  • The applicant's interlocutory application dated 26 October 2018 is dismissed.
  • The costs of the applicant's interlocutory application be reserved.