In the matter of Pure Nature Sydney Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 482

In the matter of Pure Nature Sydney Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 482

The application to amend the statement of claim was refused because the proposed amendment alleged an indeterminate range of misconduct without sufficient specificity, failing to define the case for the Defendants, thus embarrassing and contrary to procedural fairness; consequentially, applications for disclosure and leave to adduce expert evidence regarding the unpleaded matters were also refused, and there was no basis to vacate the hearing dates.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application to Amend Pleadings, Seek Further Disclosure/orders, Vacate Hearing Date, Adduce Expert Evidence
Outcome
The Plaintiff's Interlocutory Process filed 29 March 2018 is dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Amend Pleadings' 'disclosure Obligations' 'expert Evidence' 'vacation of Hearing Dates' 'case Management' 'company Winding Up']
['corporations Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['leave to Amend Pleadings' 'disclosure Obligations' 'expert Evidence' 'vacation of Hearing Dates' 'case Management' 'company Winding Up']

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

Interlocutory Application / Application to Amend Pleadings, Seek Further Disclosure/orders, Vacate Hearing Date, Adduce Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to file a further amended statement of claim containing broad allegations and particulars' 'Whether disclosure should be ordered where Practice Note SC Eq 11 has not been complied with' 'Whether leave should be granted to adduce expert evidence extending to unpleaded matters' 'Whether the hearing dates should be vacated given the history and the justification advanced']

Ratio Decidendi

The application to amend the statement of claim was refused because the proposed amendment alleged an indeterminate range of misconduct without sufficient specificity, failing to define the case for the Defendants, thus embarrassing and contrary to procedural fairness; consequentially, applications for disclosure and leave to adduce expert evidence regarding the unpleaded matters were also refused, and there was no basis to vacate the hearing dates.

Court Disposition

The Plaintiff's Interlocutory Process filed 29 March 2018 is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["The Plaintiff's Interlocutory Process filed 29 March 2018 is dismissed with costs."]