Lee v Travers & Ors [2009] NSWSC 398

Lee v Travers & Ors [2009] NSWSC 398

The appeal was dismissed because the amended statement of claim exceeded the leave to replead previously granted, raised new statute-barred causes of action without obtaining leave under s 65 Civil Procedure Act, and failed to establish that alleged fraudulent concealment postponed the applicable limitation period under s 55 Limitation Act; the exercise of summary dismissal was within discretion and showed no reviewable error.

Parties
Plaintiff: Leonard John Lee; First Defendant: John Christopher Travers; Second Defendant: Gerald Joseph Travers
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Associate Judge's Summary Dismissal Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Disposal, Statute of Limitations, Leave to Amend Pleadings, Fraud, Contract
Practice and Procedure Civil Procedure Equity Summary Disposal Statute of Limitations Leave to Amend Pleadings Fraud Contract

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leonard John Lee

Plaintiff

John Christopher Travers

First Defendant

Gerald Joseph Travers

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Associate Judge's Summary Dismissal Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim was properly dismissed under UCPR 13.4
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff's amended pleading was within leave granted
  3. 3 Whether fraud and breach of contract claims were statute barred

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the amended statement of claim exceeded the leave to replead previously granted, raised new statute-barred causes of action without obtaining leave under s 65 Civil Procedure Act, and failed to establish that alleged fraudulent concealment postponed the applicable limitation period under s 55 Limitation Act; the exercise of summary dismissal was within discretion and showed no reviewable error.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Dismiss the appeal with costs