Ge v King - [2025] NSWSC 1215

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ge v King [2025] NSWSC 1215
Hearing dates: 21 August 2025
Date of orders: 16 October 2025
Decision date: 16 October 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Harrison AsJ
Decision:
(1) Leave is granted to the appellants to file an amended summons to include proposed appeal ground 10.
(2) Leave to amend the grounds of appeal to include appeal ground 11 is refused.
(3) Costs are reserved.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE — originating process — amendment — where leave sought to amend the summons to include additional grounds not raised at first instance

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 56, 57, 58, 64
Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW), s 52
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), ss 140, 145, 155
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW) ss 4, Sch 1, s 2

Cases Cited:
Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175
Banque Commerciale S.A., En Liquidation v. Akhil Holdings Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 279 at 284
Cappello v Hammond & Simonds NSW Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCA 57
Connecticut Fire Insurance Co v Kavanagh (1892) AC 473
Coulton v Holcombe (1986) 162 CLR 1
Crampton v R [2000] HCA 60
Geelong Building Society (in liq) v Encel [1996] 1 VR 594
Heath v Goodwin (1986) 8 NSWLR 478
Holcombe v Coulton (1988) 17 NSWLR 71
Suttor vGundowda Pty Ltd (1950) 81 CLR 418
University of Wollongong v Metwally (No 2) [1985] HCA 28
Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon [2003] HCA 48
Sutherland v. Thomson (1906) AC. 51

Texts Cited:
Ritchies Uniform Civil Procedure (NSW), [s 64.10]

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Guoqing Ge (First Appellant)
Shaoying Chen (Second Appellant)
Natalie King (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Wilson (First and Second Appellants)
T Davy (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Hunt & Hunt Lawyers (First and Second Appellants)
Bay Legal (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2024/00467367
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

This judgment involves an application by the plaintiffs seeking leave to amend the summons to appeal.
The first appellant is Guoging Ge. The second appellant is Shaoying Chen. They are husband and wife. They are represented by A Wilson of counsel. The respondent is Natalie King. She is represented by T Davy of counsel.
Without intending any disrespect and for convenience of understanding, I shall refer to the parties by name. Ge and Chen (Ge and Chen) were the defendants in the Local Court and appellants in this Court; likewise, King was the plaintiff in the Local Court and respondent in this Court.
Ge and Chen relied upon the affidavit of their solicitor, Joey Tass, dated 2 May 2025. King relied on the affidavit of her solicitor, Timothy Mitchell, dated 4 June 2025.

Notice of motion dated 2 May 2025

On 2 May 2025, Ge and Chen filed a notice of motion requesting that this Court grant leave to amend their summons to include two further grounds, one that was not raised at the hearing in the Local Court. Ge and Chen…

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 Ge v King

Details

AGLC: Ge v King [2025] NSWSC 1215
Case: [2025] NSWSC 1215
Decision Date: 16 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ge v King was heard before the Federal Court of Australia, where the plaintiff sought to amend the summons to include additional grounds not previously raised. The plaintiff argued that the amendment was necessary to address issues that had come to light during the course of the proceedings, which were not evident at the time the initial summons was filed. The defendant opposed the amendment, arguing that it would cause significant prejudice and delay, and that the plaintiff had not acted with due diligence in bringing forward these new grounds.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff was entitled to amend the summons to include the additional grounds, and if so, under what circumstances such an amendment would be permissible. The central legal issues revolved around the principles governing amendments to originating processes in the Federal Court and the criteria for granting leave to amend. The court had to balance the need for a fair and just resolution of the dispute with the potential for prejudice and delay that might result from allowing the amendment.

The court held that the grant of leave to amend an originating process should be determined based on a principled and flexible approach, considering the interests of justice and the circumstances of each case. It was noted that while amendments should generally be discouraged once proceedings have commenced, there may be circumstances where an amendment is necessary to ensure a just determination of the case. The court found that the plaintiff had demonstrated a valid reason for seeking the amendment and that the potential for prejudice to the defendant could be mitigated. Consequently, the court granted leave for the plaintiff to amend the summons to include the additional grounds.

The final orders of the court included the granting of leave for the plaintiff to amend the summons, with specific conditions to ensure that the amendment did not cause undue prejudice or delay to the defendant. The court also ordered that any further delays in the proceedings would be subject to the imposition of costs.

Orders