Legal Research
Cases
Angius v Perez

Angius v Perez

Case [2025] NSWSC 954 21 August 2025

Amendment of Pleadings

Standing

Costs

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Angius v Perez [2025] NSWSC 954
Hearing dates: 11 August 2025
Date of orders: 21 August 2025
Decision date: 21 August 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity - Applications List
Before: McGrath J
Decision:
Application for leave to amend defence dismissed and parts of defences struck out.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE — Pleadings — Amendment — whether fifth, sixth and seventh defendants should be granted leave to amend their defence to rectify deficiencies in current defence — where amended defence replaces the generic defined term of “the Lawyers” with the names of two identified individuals in the pleading of concurrent wrongdoers — HELD — application for leave to amend dismissed — deficient parts of current defences of the third to seventh defendants struck out in their entirety

Legislation Cited:
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 5O
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 56
Corporations Act2001 (Cth), ss 480, 488
Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW)
Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Banque Commerciale SA (in liq) v Akhil Holdings Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 279; [1990] HCA 11
Bingo Holdings Pty Ltd v GC Group Company Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCA 184
Dartberg Pty Ltd v Wealthcare Financial Planning Pty Ltd (2007) 164 FCR 450; [2007] FCA 1216
Dickens v New South Wales (No 3) [2018] NSWSC 485
Gould v Mount Oxide Mines Ltd (in liq) (1916) 22 CLR 490; [1916] HCA 81
H.S.D. Co Pty Ltd v Masu Financial Management Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 1279
McGuirk v University of New South Wales [2009] NSWSC 1424
Permanent Custodians Ltdv King [2010] NSWSC 509
The Owners – Strata Plan No 87265 v Saaib [2021] NSWSC 150
The Owners Strata Plan v Brookfield Multiplex Limited [2010] NSWSC 360
Thorp v Holdsworth (1876) 3 Ch D 637
Ucak v Avante Developments [2007] NSWSC 367

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Robert Angius (Plaintiff)
Jose Apolinar Perez (First Defendant)
Perez Varela Lawyers Pty Ltd (Second Defendant)
Brian Silvia & Geoffrey Granger in their capacity as liquidators of Angius Hotel Investments Pty Ltd and Tararba Pty Ltd (Third and Fourth Defendants)
Carneys Lawyers Pty Ltd (Fifth Defendant)
Arthur Anthony Carney (Sixth Defendant)
Henry James Wrench (Seventh Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
P Doyle Gray (Plaintiff)
D H Mitchell and E Kneebone (Third and Fourth Defendants)
A Avery-Williams (Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Defendants)
Solicitors:
Julie Orsini (Plaintiff)
Wotton Kearney (Third and Fourth Defendants)
K&L Gates (Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Defendants)

File Number(s): 2022/00348040
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

INTRODUCTION

There are two pleading disputes for determination before me involving the form of the existing defences and proposed amendments to those defences which have attempted to overcome acknowledged deficiencies in them.
These proceedings arise out of a dispute concerning the estate of Laura Angius, the late mother of the plaintiff, Robert Angius. The broad dispute concerns the payment of money in June 2022 for fees said to be owing to the first and second defendants, Jose Perez and Perez Varela Lawyers Pty Ltd (PVL

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Angius v Perez

Details

AGLC: Angius v Perez [2025] NSWSC 954
Case: [2025] NSWSC 954
Decision Date: 21 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Angius v Perez involved a dispute where the plaintiff sought to amend their pleadings to include additional defendants. The application was heard by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The defendants, including the fifth, sixth, and seventh, sought leave to amend their defence to address deficiencies in their current defence. The primary issue was whether these defendants should be granted leave to rectify these deficiencies by amending their pleadings to include specific names of individuals instead of a generic term.

The court considered whether the proposed amendments would rectify the deficiencies in the defences of the third to seventh defendants. The court found that the amendments sought to replace the generic term "the Lawyers" with the names of two specific individuals, thereby addressing the issue of concurrent wrongdoers. However, the court ultimately concluded that the deficiencies in the defences were significant and could not be adequately rectified by the proposed amendments. Consequently, the application for leave to amend was dismissed, and the deficient parts of the current defences were struck out in their entirety.

The reasoning of the court was based on the need for clarity and precision in legal pleadings, ensuring that the defendants' positions are clearly and accurately presented. The court held that the deficiencies were such that they could not be remedied by the proposed amendments, and striking out the deficient parts of the defences was necessary to maintain the integrity of the proceedings.

The final orders of the court included the dismissal of the application for leave to amend the defences of the third to seventh defendants and the striking out of the deficient parts of their current defences in their entirety. This decision underscores the importance of precision in legal pleadings and the court's role in ensuring that the proceedings are conducted with clarity and fairness.

Orders