NEVILLE v LICARDY [1996] NSWCA 387

NEVILLE v LICARDY [1996] NSWCA 387

Leave to amend the notice of appeal should be refused because the appellants failed to satisfy the court that the unpleaded claims were sufficiently and clearly litigated at trial so as to warrant amendment at this stage.

Parties
Appellant: Neville; Respondent: Licardy
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 March 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Leave to Amend Notice of Appeal
Outcome
leave to amend notice of appeal refused
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Duty of Care, Appeals
Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Duty of Care Appeals

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Neville

Appellant

Licardy

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Leave to Amend Notice of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to amend the notice of appeal to add unpleaded grounds of appeal alleging breach of duty of care arising from a personal retainer

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend the notice of appeal should be refused because the appellants failed to satisfy the court that the unpleaded claims were sufficiently and clearly litigated at trial so as to warrant amendment at this stage.

Court Disposition

leave to amend notice of appeal refused

Orders

  • Leave to amend notice of appeal refused