Feldman v Alhadeff

Feldman (the appellant) sought leave to appeal from an interlocutory decision of the primary judge who had refused leave to amend the appellant's statement of claim in defamation proceedings against Alhadeff (the respondent). The alleged defamatory imputations arose from evidence given to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge erred in refusing leave to amend the statement of claim, particularly in relation to claims that had been previously abandoned and a new claim that appeared to be statute-barred under section 65(2) of the Civil Procedure Act. The court also considered whether the original statement of claim pleaded a cause of action arising from the same or substantially the same facts as the proposed amendments.

The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge had correctly exercised her discretion. The proposed amendments sought to reinstate claims that had been abandoned and did not include the necessary particulars to establish a cause of action. Furthermore, the new claim sought to be added was found to be statute-barred. The court held that the original statement of claim did not plead a cause of action arising from the same or substantially the same facts as the proposed amendments, and therefore, section 65(2) of the Civil Procedure Act did not apply to permit the addition of the new claim.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.