Becket v Le [2012] NSWSC 1193

Becket v Le [2012] NSWSC 1193

Leave was granted in part because the proposed sexual assault or other sexual misconduct amendments arose out of the same or substantially the same facts as the existing proceedings, involved the same parties, the same interaction on 29 April 2007, evidence already relevant to the original claims, and a different legal characterisation of the existing assault and battery case; the Court was not satisfied that those amendments would cause actual prejudice or risk the hearing date. Leave was refused for the proposed Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act cause of action because it was an entirely new cause of action requiring different lay and expert evidence, the alleged damage from the nominated...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure; Notice of Motion for Leave to Amend Statement of Claim / Procedural Ruling Before Final Hearing
Outcome
Leave to amend statement of claim granted in part; proposed Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act amendments not permitted; timetable and costs orders made.
Legal Topics
['leave to Amend Statement of Claim' 'prejudice to Defendants' 'limitation Period' 'same or Substantially the Same Facts' 'sexual Assault or Other Sexual Misconduct' 'drug Misuse and Trafficking Act Pleading']
['practice and Procedure' 'civil Procedure' 'torts' 'medical Negligence'] ['leave to Amend Statement of Claim' 'prejudice to Defendants' 'limitation Period' 'same or Substantially the Same Facts' 'sexual Assault or Other Sexual Misconduct' 'drug Misuse and Trafficking Act Pleading']

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

Practice and Procedure; Notice of Motion for Leave to Amend Statement of Claim / Procedural Ruling Before Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to file an amended statement of claim.' 'Whether proposed amendments alleging "sexual assault" or "other sexual misconduct" arose from the same or substantially the same facts as the existing causes of action for the purposes of s 65 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005.' 'Whether the proposed amendments would cause prejudice to the first and fifth defendants or risk the hearing date.' 'Whether the proposed cause of action under s 13 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 should be permitted.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was granted in part because the proposed sexual assault or other sexual misconduct amendments arose out of the same or substantially the same facts as the existing proceedings, involved the same parties, the same interaction on 29 April 2007, evidence already relevant to the original claims, and a different legal characterisation of the existing assault and battery case; the Court was not satisfied that those amendments would cause actual prejudice or risk the hearing date. Leave was refused for the proposed Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act cause of action because it was an entirely new cause of action requiring different lay and expert evidence, the alleged damage from the nominated...

Court Disposition

Leave to amend statement of claim granted in part; proposed Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act amendments not permitted; timetable and costs orders made.

Orders

  • ['The plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended statement of claim on or before 4 pm on 7 September 2012 which reflects the reasons.' 'The amendments made by the additional causes of action for "sexual assault" or "other sexual misconduct" are to be taken to have commenced from the date of filing of the amended...