SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Hartnett v Hynes [2010] QCA 65
PARTIES:
BEAU TIMOTHY JOHN HARTNETT
(plaintiff/appellant)
v
ROBERT MARK HYNES
(defendant/respondent)FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 9861 of 2009
SC No 7747 of 2007DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at BrisbaneDELIVERED ON:
23 March 2010
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
1 March 2010
JUDGE:
Muir JA and Daubney and P Lyons JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders madeORDERS:
The appeal be allowed;1.
Paragraphs 1 and 9 of the orders and directions made on 10 September 2009 be set aside and that the following be substituted therefor:2.
§ The appellant have leave to amend the third amended statement of claim filed on 11 September 2009 to include allegations which are in substance the same as those in paragraphs 7F, 7G and 7H of the appellant's proposed third amended statement of claim and any amendments consequential thereon;
§ The appellant file and serve such amended statement of claim within 14 days of today’s date;
§ When filing and serving such amended statement of claim, the appellant file and serve an amended Schedule 1 which fully identifies (by reference to file number, date, amount and, where appropriate, credit note number or other such identifying feature) any unbilled work in progress, unbilled sundries and sums owing by debtors and aged debtors allegedly written off without the appellant's consent and any credit notes given to clients of the Partnership Business without the appellant's consent;
The appellant's costs of the appeal be its costs in the cause.3.
CATCHWORDS:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – PLEADINGS AND AMENDMENT – AMENDMENT – ORIGINATING PROCESS AND PLEADINGS – GENERAL – where appellant was refused leave to amend statement of claim to include additional paragraphs – where primary judge refused leave due to complexity and incompleteness of particulars within additional paragraphs – where primary judge refused leave because amendments raised new causes of action – whether amendments raised new causes of action – whether amendments should be refused on discretionary grounds
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 5, r 376(4)
Allonnor Pty Ltd v Doran[1998] QCA 372, cited
Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175; [2009] HCA 27, cited
Borsato v Campbell& Ors [2006] QSC 191, cited
Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541; [1996] HCA 25, cited
Central Sawmilling No. 1 P/L & Ors v State of Queensland[2003] QCA 311, cited
Wolfe v State of Queensland [2009] Qd R 97; [2008] 1 QCA 113, citedCOUNSEL:
K E Downes SC, with S R R Cooper, for the appellant
P Roney for the respondentSOLICITORS:
Hartnett Lawyers for the appellant
Hynes Lawyers for the respondent
IntroductionMUIR JA:
The appellant plaintiff appeals against an order of a judge of the trial division of this Court, refusing leave to the appellant to amend…
Continue reading Hartnett v Hynes
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Hartnett v Hynes [2010] QCA 65
- Case
- [2010] QCA 65
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the proposed amendments raised new causes of action and, if not, whether the primary judge had correctly exercised their discretion in denying leave to amend. The Court examined the nature and substance of the proposed amendments and considered whether they were relevant to the existing causes of action or introduced new, distinct claims. The Court also assessed the discretionary factors the primary judge had considered, such as delay, prejudice to the respondent, and the completeness and clarity of the proposed amendments.
The Court of Appeal held that the proposed amendments did not introduce new causes of action but rather elaborated on the existing claims. The Court found that the primary judge had not adequately considered the relevance and admissibility of the proposed amendments, and that the discretionary factors did not justify denying leave to amend. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the primary judge's orders, and granted the appellant leave to amend their statement of claim. The appellant was required to file and serve the amended statement of claim within 14 days, along with an amended schedule detailing specific instances of the alleged breaches. The appellant's costs of the appeal were ordered to be its costs in the cause.
Orders
Orders of the court
The appeal be allowed;1.
Paragraphs 1 and 9 of the orders and directions made on 10 September 2009 be set aside and that the following be substituted therefor:2.
§ The appellant have leave to amend the third amended statement of claim filed on 11 September 2009 to include allegations which are in substance the same as those in paragraphs 7F, 7G and 7H of the appellant's proposed third amended statement of claim and any amendments consequential thereon;
§ The appellant file and serve such amended statement of claim within 14 days of today’s date;
§ When filing and serving such amended statement of claim, the appellant file and serve an amended Schedule 1 which fully identifies (by reference to file number, date, amount and, where appropriate, credit note number or other such identifying feature) any unbilled work in progress, unbilled sundries and sums owing by debtors and aged debtors allegedly written off without the appellant's consent and any credit notes given to clients of the Partnership Business without the appellant's consent;
The appellant's costs of the appeal be its costs in the cause.3.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.