1. Dismiss the plaintiffs’ application for leave to file the proposed amended statement of claim annexed to the notice of motion dated 28 June 2018. 2. Direct the plaintiffs to serve any further proposed amended statement of claim limited to causes of action against the existing first to third defendants and not including the claims for relief at prayers 4D or 4F (or 4C to the extent that this would affect the rights or interests of the proposed additional defendants) by no later than 12 December 2018 and, if there is objection by the existing defendants to leave being granted for the filing of that amended pleading, the existing defendants file and serve brief written submissions on or before 16 January 2019 and the plaintiffs file and serve any submissions in reply by 23 January 2019 with a view to the issue being determined on the papers. 3. The plaintiffs to pay the costs of the first to third defendants and of the proposed fifth to eighteenth defendants of the application for leave to amend. 4. Liberty to the parties to apply on 3 business days’ notice. 5. Stand the matter, including the plaintiffs’ extant notice of motion for injunctive relief, over for directions before me at 9.30am on 1 February 2019
Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – pleadings – amendment – leave to amend refused – opportunity granted for plaintiffs to serve proposed further amended pleading in relation to one category of amendments – finding that to permit second category of amendments would give rise to abuse of process
[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 Galati v Deans (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Galati v Deans (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1813
Case
[2018] NSWSC 1813
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Galati v Deans (No 2) involved a dispute between the plaintiffs, Galati, and the defendants, Deans. The matter came before the court for a determination on whether the plaintiffs should be granted leave to amend their pleadings. The primary issue before the court was whether the plaintiffs should be allowed to make further amendments to their pleadings, and if so, which specific categories of amendments should be permitted. The plaintiffs sought to amend their pleadings in two categories, while the defendants opposed any amendments.
The court considered the nature of the proposed amendments and the potential impact on the proceedings. The plaintiffs argued that the amendments were necessary to address deficiencies in their original pleadings. However, the court was mindful of the principle that amendments should not be granted if they would lead to an abuse of process. The court weighed the benefits of allowing the amendments against the potential for causing an unfair advantage or causing unnecessary delay in the proceedings.
Upon consideration, the court determined that while the plaintiffs should be granted an opportunity to serve proposed further amended pleadings in relation to one category of amendments, permitting the second category of amendments would give rise to abuse of process. The court concluded that to allow the second category of amendments would not only result in an unfair advantage but also cause undue delay and prejudice to the defendants. Consequently, the court refused leave to amend in relation to the second category of amendments.
The final orders of the court were that the plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their pleadings in relation to the first category, while the leave to amend in relation to the second category was refused. The court emphasised the importance of striking a balance between allowing necessary amendments and preventing abuse of process in the interest of fair and efficient litigation.