1. The Plaintiff have leave to amend her Statement of Claim and Reply to Defence in accordance with the reasons of the Court delivered on 7 August 2015.
2. The Plaintiff prepare and lodge with the Associate to the Honourable Justice Refshauge on or before 21 August 2015 an amendment Statement of Claim and Reply to Defence which reflects those reasons endorsed by the Defendant’s Solicitors that they have been amended in accordance with this order.
3. Upon lodgement of the documents referred to in order 2, the court will give leave for those documents to be filed and to be served in accordance with the Rules.
4. The Defendant have leave to amend its Defence within 21 days from the date of service upon it of a stamped copy of the Amended Statement of Claim.
5. The Plaintiff have leave to amend its Amended Reply to Defence further within 14 days from the date of service upon her of a stamped copy of the Amended Defence.
6. The Plaintiff pay the Defendant’s costs of this application such costs not to be assessed or payable until the determination of the action.
Category:
Principal Judgment
Catchwords:
TORTS – Negligence – Negligent misstatement – Pure economic loss – Duty of care – Duty to facilitate and process an application – Where a public authority owes a duty of care – Whether a duty exists – Salient features
SUPERANNUATION– Public service funds – Availability of public service superannuation funds to ‘temporary’ Commonwealth employees – Availability of funds to the widow of a ‘temporary’ Commonwealth employee
JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to amend statement of claim – Whether the cause of action is maintainable – Whether amendment a new cause of action –Whether action arises from the “same or substantially the same facts” – Limitation of actions – Amendment of inadequately pleaded cause of action
[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 Corkhill v Commonwealth
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Corkhill v Commonwealth [2015] ACTSC 216
Case
[2015] ACTSC 216
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Corkhill v Commonwealth, the plaintiff, Mrs. Corkhill, sought to amend her statement of claim to include a claim for damages for a negligent misstatement by the Commonwealth. This case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia and involved a dispute regarding the availability of public service superannuation funds to the widow of a 'temporary' Commonwealth employee. The central issue before the court was whether the Commonwealth owed a duty of care to Mrs. Corkhill in relation to the misstatement concerning the availability of superannuation benefits, and if so, whether this duty had been breached.
The court considered the salient features of the case to determine if a duty of care existed between Mrs. Corkhill and the Commonwealth. The salient features included the nature of the relationship between the parties, the foreseeability of harm, and the reliance placed by Mrs. Corkhill on the misstatement. The court also examined whether the negligent misstatement led to pure economic loss and whether this was a foreseeable consequence of the breach of duty. Additionally, the court needed to decide if the amendment to the statement of claim constituted a new cause of action or if it arose from the same or substantially the same facts as the original claim.
In its judgment, the court found that the Commonwealth did owe a duty of care to Mrs. Corkhill in relation to the misstatement. It was determined that the Commonwealth's actions in providing incorrect information about the availability of superannuation benefits to the widow of a 'temporary' Commonwealth employee were such that a duty of care existed. The court also ruled that the amendment to the statement of claim did not introduce a new cause of action but rather elaborated on the existing claim. Consequently, the court granted Mrs. Corkhill leave to amend her statement of claim and provided detailed orders for the process of amendment and further proceedings. The court ordered that Mrs. Corkhill prepare and lodge an amended statement of claim by a specified date, with the Commonwealth allowed to amend its defence within a set period thereafter. The court also ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the application, pending the determination of the main action.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The Plaintiff have leave to amend her Statement of Claim and Reply to Defence in accordance with the reasons of the Court delivered on 7 August 2015.
2. The Plaintiff prepare and lodge with the Associate to the Honourable Justice Refshauge on or before 21 August 2015 an amendment Statement of Claim and Reply to Defence which reflects those reasons endorsed by the Defendant’s Solicitors that they have been amended in accordance with this order.
3. Upon lodgement of the documents referred to in order 2, the court will give leave for those documents to be filed and to be served in accordance with the Rules.
4. The Defendant have leave to amend its Defence within 21 days from the date of service upon it of a stamped copy of the Amended Statement of Claim.
5. The Plaintiff have leave to amend its Amended Reply to Defence further within 14 days from the date of service upon her of a stamped copy of the Amended Defence.
6. The Plaintiff pay the Defendant’s costs of this application such costs not to be assessed or payable until the determination of the action.