Farmer v Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 1423

Farmer v Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 1423

Although the plaintiff gave no explanation for seeking the amendment more than four years after the Statement of Claim was filed, the Court was not persuaded that either defendant had suffered identifiable prejudice. The issue of lighting had already arisen in evidence and investigations, and the defendants would not have been in any different position had the particular been included earlier. In the interests of justice, leave to file the Further Amended Statement of Claim was granted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure Application to Amend Statement of Claim / Application Brought on the First or Second Day of the Hearing
Outcome
Leave granted to the plaintiff to file a Further Amended Statement of Claim; plaintiff ordered to pay the defendant's cost of and occasioned by the amendment.
Legal Topics
['pleadings' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'late Application for Amendment' 'prejudice' 'negligence Particulars']
['civil Procedure'] ['pleadings' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'late Application for Amendment' 'prejudice' 'negligence Particulars']

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 Procedure Application to Amend Statement of Claim / Application Brought on the First or Second Day of the Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend the Statement of Claim by adding a particular of negligence alleging failure to provide adequate lighting at or near the staircase.' 'Whether the absence of any explanation for the lateness of the amendment should prevent leave being granted.' 'Whether either defendant would suffer prejudice if the late amendment were allowed.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the plaintiff gave no explanation for seeking the amendment more than four years after the Statement of Claim was filed, the Court was not persuaded that either defendant had suffered identifiable prejudice. The issue of lighting had already arisen in evidence and investigations, and the defendants would not have been in any different position had the particular been included earlier. In the interests of justice, leave to file the Further Amended Statement of Claim was granted.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to the plaintiff to file a Further Amended Statement of Claim; plaintiff ordered to pay the defendant's cost of and occasioned by the amendment.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to the plaintiff to file a Further Amended Statement of Claim in the form handed to the Court dated 12 October 2022.' 'Direct that the original of that Further Amended Statement of Claim be filed on or before 4pm Monday 17 October 2022.' "Order the plaintiff to pay the defendant's cost of and...