Raad v Cossey (re application to amend statement of claim) [2022] NSWDC 58

Raad v Cossey (re application to amend statement of claim) [2022] NSWDC 58

Leave to amend was refused because the proposed tiredness particulars would in substance raise a new negligence case after all evidence and submissions had concluded, the plaintiff gave no satisfactory explanation for not seeking amendment when the relevant evidence arose in August 2018, the amendments were not caused by the defendant's Third Further Amended Defence, and allowing them would require reopening the hearing and further lay and expert evidence, causing unacceptable delay contrary to s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) and the principles in Aon.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedural Ruling on Notice of Motion to Amend Statement of Claim / After Closure of Evidence and Submissions, After Judgment Was Reserved
Outcome
Plaintiff's notice of motion dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['amendment of Pleadings' 'delay' 'case Management' 'reopening of Hearing' 'overriding Purpose' 'costs']
['civil Procedure' 'negligence' 'motor Accidents'] ['amendment of Pleadings' 'delay' 'case Management' 'reopening of Hearing' 'overriding Purpose' 'costs']

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

Civil Procedural Ruling on Notice of Motion to Amend Statement of Claim / After Closure of Evidence and Submissions, After Judgment Was Reserved

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to file an Amended Statement of Claim after judgment was reserved.' 'Whether the proposed amendments alleging tiredness would raise a new case of negligence and require reopening of the hearing and further lay and expert evidence.' 'Whether the plaintiff provided an adequate explanation for delay in seeking the amendments.' 'Whether granting leave would accord with the dictates of justice and the overriding purpose in the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend was refused because the proposed tiredness particulars would in substance raise a new negligence case after all evidence and submissions had concluded, the plaintiff gave no satisfactory explanation for not seeking amendment when the relevant evidence arose in August 2018, the amendments were not caused by the defendant's Third Further Amended Defence, and allowing them would require reopening the hearing and further lay and expert evidence, causing unacceptable delay contrary to s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) and the principles in Aon.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's notice of motion dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff's notice of motion filed 7 January 2022 is dismissed." "The plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of and incidental to the notice of motion."]