Hopcroft v Edmunds - [2011] SASC 202

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
HOPCROFT & ANOR v EDMUNDS & ORS
[2011] SASC 202
Reasons for Decision of The Honourable Justice Blue
18 November 2011
PROCEDURE - SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - PROCEDURE UNDER RULES OF COURT - AMENDMENT
Plaintiffs seek to amend their statement of claim on second day of trial - consideration of relevant factors - effect on trial.
Held: Amendment allowed.
Supreme Court Rules 2006 (SA) r 54, 3, 113, 116, 117; Limitations of Actions Act 1936 (SA), referred to.
Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175; Channel Seven Australia Pty Ltd v Manock [2010] SASCFC 59, applied.
Abrook v Paterson (Unreported, Supreme Court of South Australia Full Court, Olsson J, 3 March 1995) 3 March 1995; Chapman v Australian Broadcasting Authority (2000) 77 SASR 181; Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Carotino (Australia) Pty Ltd [2011] SASC 42; JN Taylor Holdings Ltd (in liq) v Bond (1993) 59 SASR 432; Pillay v Lloyd [2000] SASC 208; Pope v Orchard [2010] SASC 354; Weldon v Neale (1887) 19 QBD 394; Wenlock v Moloney [1965] 2 All ER 871, considered.

HOPCROFT & ANOR v EDMUNDS & ORS
[2011] SASC 202
Civil: Ruling

BLUE J: The trial in this matter commenced on 15 November 2011.
During the plaintiffs’ opening address, two issues arose concerning the constitution of the contract upon which the plaintiffs sue and the basis upon which the plaintiffs sue the fourth defendant Dadeeton Pty Ltd (“Dadeeton”).
On the morning of 16 November 2011, the plaintiffs applied for permission to amend their statement of claim. The application is opposed by the defendants.
The application is made pursuant to r 54 of the Supreme Court Rules 2006. It was common ground that I have a discretion whether or not to permit the amendment. Counsel for both parties referred to the decision of the High Court in Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University,[1] the decision of the Full Court in Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd v Manock,[2] and the decision of Kelly J in Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Carotino (Australia) Pty Ltd.[3]
[1] (2009) 239 CLR 175; [2009] HCA 27.
[2] [2010] SASCFC 59.
[3] [2011] SASC 42.
In approaching the application, I bear in mind the provisions of rules 3, 113, 116 and 117 of the Supreme Court Rules 2006. I take into account all of the factors identified by counsel for the parties, including the factors derived from Aon Risk Services Australia[4] and listed in Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd v Manock by Bleby J (White J agreeing) at [46] and Gray J at [119].[5]
[4] (2009) 239 CLR 175.
[5] [2010] SASCFC 59.
1. Plea of contract
By paragraph 8 of the existing statement of claim, the plaintiffs plead that in about June 1995 the plaintiffs and the first, second and third defendants…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hopcroft v Edmunds and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2011] SASC 202
Decision Date: 18 November 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hopcroft v Edmunds involves a dispute under the Supreme Court Procedure in South Australia, focusing on the amendment of a statement of claim on the second day of the trial. The plaintiff, Hopcroft, sought to introduce new paragraphs into their statement of claim, which the defendant, Edmunds, opposed. The core legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiffs were entitled to amend their statement of claim at such a late stage and what factors should be considered in making this determination.

The court considered several factors in deciding whether to permit the amendment, including the potential impact on the trial, the stage of the proceedings, and whether there was any prejudice to the opposing party. The plaintiffs argued that the amendment would not affect the trial's fairness or the defendants' ability to respond. However, the defendants raised concerns about the lateness of the proposed amendment and the lack of specific details regarding the damages claimed.

The court ultimately decided that while the amendment of a statement of claim at a late stage should not be permitted lightly, the circumstances of this case warranted granting permission. The court noted that the proposed amendments did not introduce new causes of action but rather sought to clarify existing claims. Furthermore, the court found that there was no substantial prejudice to the defendants in allowing the amendment, as they were able to adequately respond to the changes. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, granting permission for the proposed amendments to the statement of claim.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

Finally, the defendants seek permission to introduce a new paragraph 8 into Part 2 seeking, by way of relief, and in the alternative, damages for breach of contract to be assessed. However, there is no plea in Part 1 of the proposed statement of claim that the plaintiffs suffered damages by reason of alleged breaches of contract, nor identification of such damages. In those circumstances, I refuse leave to amend in this respect.Conclusion I will hear the parties as to the terms of an order granting permission to the plaintiffs to amend paragraph 8 of and introduce paragraph 15 into Part 1 and to introduce paragraphs 2 and 5 into Part 2 of the statement of claim.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.