Hamod v State of New South Wales (No 9)

In the matter of Hamod v State of New South Wales (No 9), the plaintiffs sought to file a seventh amended statement of claim within one month of the substantive hearing. The plaintiffs, who were unrepresented, proposed an amended statement of claim that was 357 pages long and contained 1119 paragraphs, each labelled as a "material fact". The amendment sought to plead a cause of action in defamation, with the events in question having occurred in the mid 1990s. The defendants argued that the application was an abuse of process.

The court had to determine whether the plaintiffs should be granted leave to file the seventh amended statement of claim, considering the extensive nature of the proposed amendment, the timing of the application, and the lack of representation for the plaintiffs. The court also had to consider whether the application constituted an abuse of process. The court found that the plaintiffs' application was an abuse of process, as it was an attempt to introduce new causes of action outside the time limits set by the court, and that the proposed amendment was excessive and unnecessary. The court further found that the plaintiffs' lack of representation did not excuse their failure to comply with the court's orders.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the application with costs. The plaintiffs were not granted leave to file the seventh amended statement of claim, and the proposed amendment was deemed to be an abuse of process. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the court's orders and timelines, and the need for parties to be represented by legal counsel in complex litigation.