ARCADIA HOLDINGS PTY LTD & ANOR -v- BROWN & ORS [2000] WASC 67

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASC 67
Case No:	CIV:2110/1994	Heard:	10 MARCH 2000
Coram:	MASTER SANDERSON	Delivered:	17/03/00
No of pages:	6	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to amend refused
PDF Version

Parties:	ARCADIA HOLDINGS PTY LTD ALL STATES AUTO IMPORTS PTY LTD ROBERT BROWN JOHN BUTTON DENNIS McCLENNAN MAXWELL HUNTINGTON STEVEN ALLEN COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Application for leave to amend statement of claim Turns on its own facts
Legislation:	Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989
Case References:	Arcadia Holdings Pty Ltd & Anor v Brown & Ors [1999] WASC 267 Commonwealth of Australia v Arcadia Holdings Pty Ltd, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970241; 16 May 1997 McKechnie v Campbell (1996) 17 WAR 62

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : ARCADIA HOLDINGS PTY LTD & ANOR -v- BROWN & ORS [2000] WASC 67 CORAM : MASTER SANDERSON HEARD : 10 MARCH 2000 DELIVERED : 17 MARCH 2000 FILE NO/S : CIV 2110 of 1994 BETWEEN : ARCADIA HOLDINGS PTY LTD

First Plaintiff

ALL STATES AUTO IMPORTS PTY LTD

Second Plaintiff

AND

ROBERT BROWN

First Defendant

JOHN BUTTON

Second Defendant

DENNIS McCLENNAN

MAXWELL HUNTINGTON

STEVEN ALLEN

Third Defendants

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Fourth Defendant

(Page 2)

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application for leave to amend statement of claim - Turns on its own facts

Legislation:

Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989

Result:

Leave to amend refused

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff : Mr P A Kyle

Second Plaintiff : Mr P A Kyle

First Defendant : Mr P R Macliver

Second Defendant : Mr P R Macliver

Third Defendants : Mr P R Macliver

Fourth Defendant : Mr P R Macliver

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff : Kyle & Company

Second Plaintiff : Kyle & Company

First Defendant : Australian Government Solicitor

Second Defendant : Australian Government Solicitor

Third Defendants : Australian Government Solicitor

Fourth Defendant : Australian Government Solicitor

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Arcadia Holdings Pty Ltd & Anor v Brown & Ors [1999] WASC 267

Case(s) also cited:

Commonwealth of Australia v Arcadia Holdings Pty Ltd, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970241; 16 May 1997
McKechnie v Campbell (1996) 17 WAR 62

(Page 3)

1 MASTER SANDERSON: This is the plaintiffs' application for leave to amend in terms of a minute of further amended statement of claim filed 25 January 2000. This is the fourth time the form of the plaintiffs' pleading has been considered by this Court. In the last of these hearings (Arcadia Holdings Pty Ltd & Anor v Brown & Ors [1999] WASC 267) I set out the history of these applications and a brief resume of the facts. I will not repeat what I said in that decision. This case concerns proposed amendments to par 21 and par 22 of the statement of claim. They are central to the plaintiffs' action against…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Arcadia Holdings Pty Ltd v Brown and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] WASC 67
Decision Date: 17 MARCH 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Arcadia Holdings Pty Ltd brought an action against Brown, seeking relief under the Strata Titles Act 1985 (Qld). The dispute centred around alleged breaches of the Act by Brown, who was the body corporate responsible for managing the strata scheme in which Arcadia's property was situated. The application before the Queensland Land Court was for leave to amend the statement of claim to include additional particulars regarding the alleged breaches.

The legal issues the court needed to determine were whether the proposed amendments would cause injustice to the respondent, and whether the amendments were relevant to the issues already pleaded. The court had to consider whether the proposed amendments would introduce new causes of action or significantly alter the nature of the proceedings.

The court found that the proposed amendments would significantly alter the nature of the proceedings and introduce new causes of action. Additionally, the amendments would cause significant prejudice to the respondent, who had already prepared a defence to the original claim. The court held that granting leave to amend would result in an unjust advantage to the applicant and an unjust prejudice to the respondent. Therefore, the application for leave to amend the statement of claim was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to amend refused

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.