Coshott v Colbron [2016] NSWDC 253

Coshott v Colbron [2016] NSWDC 253

The plaintiff's leave application was dismissed because it was the seventh attempt to plead the appeal, the plaintiff had repeatedly breached court orders without explanation, the changes were not identified, the defendant's pleading concerns were not addressed, the Court had previously stated there would be no...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Against an Assessment of Bills of Costs / Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Further Amended Summons; Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Proceedings
Outcome
Plaintiff's Notice of Motion dismissed; defendant's Notice of Motion stood over; proceedings to proceed on the Amended Summons filed in Court on 12 August 2016.
Legal Topics
['leave to Amend Summons' 'delay' 'case Management' 'costs Assessment Appeal' 'dismissal of Proceedings' 'costs Orders']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['leave to Amend Summons' 'delay' 'case Management' 'costs Assessment Appeal' 'dismissal of Proceedings' 'costs Orders']

Source-derived case record

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 Appeal Against an Assessment of Bills of Costs / Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Further Amended Summons; Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to file a further amended summons after multiple prior amendments.' "Whether the plaintiff's proceedings should be dismissed because of delay, repeated amendments and non-compliance with court orders." 'Whether a lump sum costs order should be made for costs said to exceed $23,000.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's leave application was dismissed because it was the seventh attempt to plead the appeal, the plaintiff had repeatedly breached court orders without explanation, the changes were not identified, the defendant's pleading concerns were not addressed, the Court had previously stated there would be no further indulgences in amending the summons, and version 7 included relief unrelated to the costs assessment appeal. Although the defendant's dismissal application had considerable merit, the Court stood it over because there was little substantive difference between version 3 and version 7, little prejudice in proceeding on the existing pleading, all evidence had been filed and...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's Notice of Motion dismissed; defendant's Notice of Motion stood over; proceedings to proceed on the Amended Summons filed in Court on 12 August 2016.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff's Notice of Motion filed 29/9/16 dismissed." "Defendant's Notice of Motion filed 12/8/16 stood over to the date of the hearing of the Amended Summons on 28/10/16." 'List for hearing on 28/10/16, estimated 1 day.' 'Matter will proceed for hearing on 28/10/16 on the pleading contained in the Amended...