The Owners Strata Plan No 66375 v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd [2016] NSWSC 549

The Owners Strata Plan No 66375 v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd [2016] NSWSC 549

Leave was granted because, although there had been delay and the explanation for it was limited, no hearing date had been allocated, the existing timetable for evidence was not shown to be affected, the amendments were unlikely to delay or materially extend the hearing, and no real prejudice was established. In...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion for Leave to Continue Cross Claim and Amend Pleadings / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Third and fourth defendants granted leave to continue their cross-claim against the second defendant and leave to amend.
Legal Topics
['leave to Continue Cross Claim' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'delay' 'costs Thrown Away' 'home Warranty Insurance' 'rectification']
['civil Procedure' 'construction' 'insurance'] ['leave to Continue Cross Claim' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'delay' 'costs Thrown Away' 'home Warranty Insurance' 'rectification']

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

Notice of Motion for Leave to Continue Cross Claim and Amend Pleadings / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the third and fourth defendants should be granted leave to proceed against the second defendant on their cross-claim.' 'Whether the third and fourth defendants should be granted leave to amend their cross-summons, cross-claim list statement and list response.' 'Whether delay in seeking the amendments justified refusal of leave.' 'Whether any prejudice would be caused by granting leave to amend.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was granted because, although there had been delay and the explanation for it was limited, no hearing date had been allocated, the existing timetable for evidence was not shown to be affected, the amendments were unlikely to delay or materially extend the hearing, and no real prejudice was established. In light of s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), the discretion favoured resolving the real issues in dispute justly and as quickly and cheaply as possible.

Court Disposition

Third and fourth defendants granted leave to continue their cross-claim against the second defendant and leave to amend.

Orders

  • ['Order in terms of prayer 1 of the notice of motion filed on 24 March 2016, on the terms set out in prayer 2.' 'Order in terms of prayer 3.' "The applicants are to pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to and thrown away by reason of the amendments." 'The amended cross-summons list statement and list...