Kumar v Primes [2024] NSWCA 134

Kumar v Primes [2024] NSWCA 134

Neither the refusal to grant an adjournment nor the grant of leave to amend the statement of claim was in error; no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice was demonstrated; the criteria for leave to appeal were not met and grounds of appeal did not succeed.

Parties
Appellant: Mr Shashwat Kumar; First Respondent: Mr Oliver Primes; Second Respondent: Ms Kim Wethmar
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Application for Leave to Appeal and on Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Adjournment, Amendment of Pleadings, Leave to Appeal, Procedural Fairness
Civil Procedure Appeals Adjournment Amendment of Pleadings Leave to Appeal Procedural Fairness

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

Parties

Mr Shashwat Kumar

Appellant

Mr Oliver Primes

First Respondent

Ms Kim Wethmar

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Application for Leave to Appeal and on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to grant an adjournment was erroneous and occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice
  2. 2 Whether the granting of leave to amend the statement of claim to add a further $50,000 claim at hearing was in error

Ratio Decidendi

Neither the refusal to grant an adjournment nor the grant of leave to amend the statement of claim was in error; no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice was demonstrated; the criteria for leave to appeal were not met and grounds of appeal did not succeed.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • To the extent leave to appeal is required, such leave is refused with costs.
  • The appeal is otherwise dismissed with costs.