Norman v Wall (No. 2) [2020] NSWSC 997

Norman v Wall (No. 2) [2020] NSWSC 997

Leave to amend was refused because the proposed amended statement of claim was provided more than two months late, exceeded the confined professional negligence and related claims against Mr Wall, sought to re-join Mr Brennock and raise other matters including constitutional assertions, and did not properly confine the proceedings despite repeated assistance from the Court and a pro bono referral. The proceedings were dismissed for want of due despatch because more than a year had elapsed since commencement and the plaintiffs had not prosecuted the proceedings with due despatch, consistently with the overriding purpose in s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW). Costs were ordered...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceedings in the Professional Negligence List Concerning Proposed Claims for Professional Negligence And/or Breach of Fiduciary Duty And/or Breach of Trustee's Duties / Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion for Leave to File and Serve a Further Amended Statement of Claim; Court's Own Motion Consideration of Dismissal for Want of Due Despatch
Outcome
Leave to file and rely on the further amended statement of claim was refused; the plaintiffs' notice of motion was dismissed; the proceedings were dismissed for want of due despatch; the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendant's costs.
Legal Topics
['amendment of Originating Process' 'disallowance of Amendment' 'want of Due Despatch' 'self Represented Litigants' 'pro Bono Assistance' 'costs Follow the Event']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'professional Negligence'] ['amendment of Originating Process' 'disallowance of Amendment' 'want of Due Despatch' 'self Represented Litigants' 'pro Bono Assistance' 'costs Follow the Event']

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 Proceedings in the Professional Negligence List Concerning Proposed Claims for Professional Negligence And/or Breach of Fiduciary Duty And/or Breach of Trustee's Duties / Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion for Leave to File and Serve a Further Amended Statement of Claim; Court's Own Motion Consideration of Dismissal for Want of Due Despatch

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiffs should be granted leave to file and rely on the further amended statement of claim provided at 5:49pm on 26 July 2020.' 'Whether the proceedings should be dismissed for want of due despatch under r 12.7 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).' "Whether the plaintiffs should pay the defendant's costs of the notice of motion and the proceedings."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend was refused because the proposed amended statement of claim was provided more than two months late, exceeded the confined professional negligence and related claims against Mr Wall, sought to re-join Mr Brennock and raise other matters including constitutional assertions, and did not properly confine the proceedings despite repeated assistance from the Court and a pro bono referral. The proceedings were dismissed for want of due despatch because more than a year had elapsed since commencement and the plaintiffs had not prosecuted the proceedings with due despatch, consistently with the overriding purpose in s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW). Costs were ordered...

Court Disposition

Leave to file and rely on the further amended statement of claim was refused; the plaintiffs' notice of motion was dismissed; the proceedings were dismissed for want of due despatch; the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendant's costs.

Orders

  • ["Refuse leave to the plaintiffs to file and rely upon the further amended statement of claim provided to the defendant and the Court at 5:49pm on 26 July 2020 and the plaintiffs' notice of motion filed 1 December 2019 dismissed;" "The plaintiffs are to pay the defendant's costs of the notice of motion;" 'Pursuant...