Kennedy v Stockland Developments Pty Ltd (No 5) [2012] NSWLEC 21

Kennedy v Stockland Developments Pty Ltd (No 5) [2012] NSWLEC 21

Leave to amend was refused because the proposed late amendments raised new factual and legal issues, would cause real prejudice to Stockland by requiring further preparation and evidence, involved issues affecting Wollongong City Council which was not a party and had not been sufficiently put on notice, were unsupported by any evidence explaining the delay, and refusal would not prejudice the applicant because fresh proceedings remained available.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Proceedings; Procedural Application to Amend Points of Claim and Amended Summons / Late Application to Amend Served the Night Before a Three Day Hearing
Outcome
Application to amend dismissed
Legal Topics
['late Amendment of Pleadings' 'prejudice' 'delay' 'development Consent' 'temporary Pathway Works']
['practice and Procedure' 'environmental Planning and Assessment'] ['late Amendment of Pleadings' 'prejudice' 'delay' 'development Consent' 'temporary Pathway Works']

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

Class 4 Proceedings; Procedural Application to Amend Points of Claim and Amended Summons / Late Application to Amend Served the Night Before a Three Day Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend his points of claim and amended summons to raise new allegations about temporary pathway works and development consent under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.' 'Whether the late amendments would prejudice Stockland and require further evidence and preparation.' 'Whether the absence of evidence explaining delay and the position of Wollongong City Council, the owner of Lot 517, weighed against leave to amend.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend was refused because the proposed late amendments raised new factual and legal issues, would cause real prejudice to Stockland by requiring further preparation and evidence, involved issues affecting Wollongong City Council which was not a party and had not been sufficiently put on notice, were unsupported by any evidence explaining the delay, and refusal would not prejudice the applicant because fresh proceedings remained available.

Court Disposition

Application to amend dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application to amend is dismissed.']