Yeeh Yong Jong v Advanced Dental Services Pty Limited [2018] NSWDC 269

Yeeh Yong Jong v Advanced Dental Services Pty Limited [2018] NSWDC 269

Leave to amend was refused because the plaintiff sought on the day set for hearing to introduce two additional and alternative causes of action despite having appreciated the alternative case earlier, and permitting the amendment would offend case management principles, fail to facilitate the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues, likely require further investigation and an amended defence, and probably vacate the hearing. The defendant's summary dismissal motion was refused because, although the pleaded breach of Lease claim was said by plaintiff's counsel not to succeed, the plaintiff had an arguable pleading point that the material facts pleaded could sustain alternative...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceedings Claiming Damages With Interest Arising Out of Dealings Concerning a Lease of 109 Blackwall Street, Woy Woy / Interlocutory Applications: Plaintiff's Application to Amend Statement of Claim on First Day of Hearing; Defendant's Application for Summary Dismissal of Parts of the Statement of Claim
Outcome
Plaintiff's Notice of Motion to amend dismissed; defendant's motion for summary dismissal dismissed; costs ordered against the unsuccessful moving party on each motion.
Legal Topics
['amendment of Pleadings' 'case Management' 'overriding Purpose' 'summary Dismissal' 'no Reasonable Cause of Action' 'equitable Lease' 'binding Agreement to Lease' 'repudiation of Lease']
['civil Procedure' 'property Law' 'leases'] ['amendment of Pleadings' 'case Management' 'overriding Purpose' 'summary Dismissal' 'no Reasonable Cause of Action' 'equitable Lease' 'binding Agreement to Lease' 'repudiation of Lease']

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 Claiming Damages With Interest Arising Out of Dealings Concerning a Lease of 109 Blackwall Street, Woy Woy / Interlocutory Applications: Plaintiff's Application to Amend Statement of Claim on First Day of Hearing; Defendant's Application for Summary Dismissal of Parts of the Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave on the day set for hearing to amend the Statement of Claim to add causes of action for breach of an Equitable Lease and/or a Binding Agreement to Lease.' "Whether parts of the plaintiff's Statement of Claim should be dismissed pursuant to UCPR Part 13.4 as disclosing no reasonable cause of action." 'Whether the facts pleaded could sustain unpleaded alternative causes of action for breach of an Equitable Lease and/or a Binding Agreement to Lease.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend was refused because the plaintiff sought on the day set for hearing to introduce two additional and alternative causes of action despite having appreciated the alternative case earlier, and permitting the amendment would offend case management principles, fail to facilitate the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues, likely require further investigation and an amended defence, and probably vacate the hearing. The defendant's summary dismissal motion was refused because, although the pleaded breach of Lease claim was said by plaintiff's counsel not to succeed, the plaintiff had an arguable pleading point that the material facts pleaded could sustain alternative...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's Notice of Motion to amend dismissed; defendant's motion for summary dismissal dismissed; costs ordered against the unsuccessful moving party on each motion.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff's Notice of Motion filed 27 June 2018 is dismissed." "The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs of and caused by the Notice of Motion." 'The motion filed by email to my Associate on 31 July 2018 is dismissed.' "The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs of and caused by the motion."]