Legal Research
Cases
Joyce v Palassis [No 3]

Joyce v Palassis [No 3]

Case [2007] WASC 214 6 September 2007

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

JOYCE -v- PALASSIS [No 3] [2007] WASC 214

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2007] WASC 214
Case No:	CIV:2134/1998	Heard:	23 APRIL 2007
Coram:	LE MIERE J	Delivered:	6/09/07
No of pages:	19	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave granted to amend defence
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	NEIL KEVIN JOYCE KEITH GRAEME LINGARD NICK CHRISTOU STANTON PARTNERS STAN MICHAEL PALASSIS CHATTOCK HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 009 357 895)
Catchwords:	Civil practice and procedure Pleadings Amendment to defence Application to disallow amendments to defence Whether leave required to bring application to disallow Whether defendants only entitled to make amendments to defence that are consequential upon amendments to statement of claim Whether amendments to defence consequential Civil practice and procedure Pleadings Application for leave to amend defence Whether satisfactory explanation given as to necessity of amendment Whether plaintiff would suffer irremediable prejudice Leave granted to amend on conditions
Legislation:	Limitation Act 1935 (WA), s 38 Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 1, O 2, O 20, O 21, O 29, O 58
Case References:	Bowes v Chaleyer (1923) 32 CLR 159 Giuriato v Attorney-General (Tas) (1997) 6 Tas R 344 Howard v Watling [2002] TASSC 87 Jones v Bass Express Ships Ltd [1998] TASSC 22 OD Transport (Australia) Pty Ltd (in liq) v OD Transport Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 1653 Queensland v J L Holdings Pty Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 146 Squire v Squire [1972] 1 Ch 391 Stone James (a firm) v Pioneer Concrete (WA) Pty Ltd [1985] WAR 233 Tony Sadler Pty Ltd v McLeod Nominees Pty Ltd (1995) 13 WAR 323 Wilson v Grimwade [1995] 2 VR 628

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : JOYCE -v- PALASSIS [No 3] [2007] WASC 214 CORAM : LE MIERE J HEARD : 23 APRIL 2007 DELIVERED : 6 SEPTEMBER 2007 FILE NO/S : CIV 2134 of 1998 BETWEEN : NEIL KEVIN JOYCE

KEITH GRAEME LINGARD

NICK CHRISTOU

First Plaintiffs

STANTON PARTNERS

Second Plaintiff

AND

STAN MICHAEL PALASSIS

First Defendant

CHATTOCK HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 009 357 895)

Second Defendant

(Page 2)

Catchwords:

Civil practice and procedure - Pleadings - Amendment to defence - Application to disallow amendments to defence - Whether leave required to bring application to disallow - Whether defendants only entitled to make amendments to defence that are consequential upon amendments to statement of claim - Whether amendments to defence consequential

Civil practice and procedure - Pleadings - Application for leave to amend defence - Whether satisfactory explanation given as to necessity of amendment - Whether plaintiff would suffer irremediable prejudice - Leave granted to amend on conditions

Legislation:

Limitation Act 1935 (WA), s 38

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 1, O 2, O 20, O 21, O 29, O 58

Result:

Leave granted to amend defence

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiffs : Ms G S Pitt

Second Plaintiff : Ms G S Pitt

First Defendant : Mr M H Zilko SC

Second Defendant…

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 Joyce v Palassis [No 3]

Details

AGLC: Joyce v Palassis [No 3] [2007] WASC 214
Case: [2007] WASC 214
Decision Date: 6 SEPTEMBER 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Joyce v Palassis [No 3], the plaintiff, David Joyce, sued the defendants, George Palassis and his company, Palassis Pty Ltd, for damages related to a contractual dispute. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the plaintiff sought to amend his statement of claim. The defendants, in turn, sought to amend their defences in response to these changes. The central issue before the court was whether the defendants needed leave to bring an application to disallow the plaintiff's amendments to the statement of claim and whether the amendments to the defence were consequential upon the amendments to the statement of claim.

The court addressed these issues by examining whether the amendments to the defence were directly related to the changes in the statement of claim. The court concluded that the amendments were indeed consequential, as they directly responded to the new claims raised by the plaintiff. Additionally, the court considered whether the defendants had provided a satisfactory explanation for the necessity of the amendments and whether the plaintiff would suffer irremediable prejudice if the amendments were allowed. Finding that the defendants had provided a reasonable explanation and that the plaintiff would not suffer irremediable prejudice, the court granted leave for the amendments to the defence.

Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the defendants, allowing them to amend their defence in response to the plaintiff's amended statement of claim. The court imposed certain conditions to ensure that the amendments were made in a timely and orderly manner. These conditions included a requirement for the defendants to provide a detailed schedule of the amendments and to file their amended defence within a specified timeframe. This decision underscored the importance of ensuring that amendments to pleadings are both necessary and justified, while also protecting the rights of all parties involved in the litigation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave granted to amend defence

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Joyce v Palassis [No 3] [2007] WASC 214

Most Recent Citation

Joyce v Palassis [No 4] [2008] WASC 45

Cases citing this decision · 6 of 6 shown

Cherwell Creek Coal Pty Ltd v BHP Queensland Coal Investments Pty Ltd (No 27)
[2020] QLC 32 Para 1

…ving made the allegation, Cherwell Creek cannot prevent BMA from responding “in such manner as it may be advised.”[6] [5] Joyce v Palassis (No 3) [2007] WASC 214 [30]. [6] Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd v Spalvins [1999] FCA 781 [83].…
The Owners - Units Plan No 1917 v Koundouris & Anor
[2014] ACTSC 269

…for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125 Hawkins v Clayton (1988) 164 CLR 539 Davey & Anor v Herbst & Anor [2011] ACTSC 112 Joyce v Palassis [No 3] [2007] WASC 214 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 Katsilis v Broken Hill Pty Co Limited (1978) 52 ALJR 189 Livingspring Pty Ltd v Kliger Partners [2008] 20 VR 377 Logicr…
Prefumo v Vollaire
[2011] WADC 22

…165 CLR 543 Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341; 156 ER 145 Haines v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1995) 43 NSWLR 404 Joyce v Palassis [No 3] [2007] WASC 214 Kimberley Downs Pty Ltd v Western Australia (Unreported, WASC, Library No 6414, 25 August 1986 Lee v St George Bank Ltd [2006] WASC 221 R v Carroll (…
Woodward v Shellab Pty Ltd (t/as Shellabears)
[2009] WADC 74 Para 3

…The order granting leave to amend is in similar general terms to the order considered by Le Miere J in Joyce v Palassis [No 3] [2007] WASC 214. The order in that case was: "The defendants file and serve amended defences by …" [24]. Le Miere J rejected an argument that the order permitted the defendant to amend its…
Joyce v Palassis [No 5]
[2009] WASC 6 Para 1

…A copy of the Deed was provided to the court during the hearing of this application. It was the subject of my judgment in Joyce v Palassis [No 3] [2007] WASC 214. In that judgment I summarised the Deed, other litigation referred to in the Deed and subsequent pleading amendments in this action. I will repeat those…
Joyce v Palassis [No 4]
[2008] WASC 45

…s Pty Ltd (in liq) [2003] VSCA 40 Cubillo v Commonwealth [2001] FCA 1213; (2001) 112 FCR 455 Joyce v Palassis [2007] WASC 156 Joyce v Palassis [No 3] [2007] WASC 214 Kimberley Downs Pty Ltd v Western Australia (Unreported, WASC, Library No 6414, 25 August 1986) Levy v Bablis [2007] NSWSC 565 National Mutual Proper…

View all 6 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 6 of 6 shown

Joyce v Palassis
[2007] WASC 156

…ovember 2000 and made by the first defendant (Mr Palassis) and the first plaintiffs. I delivered reasons for judgment in that matter on 24 July 2007 ([2007] WASC 156). In those reasons for judgment I outlined the issues in these proceedings. I will commence these reasons by repeating that outline of the issues in…
Howard v Watling
[2002] TASSC 87

…Bowes v Chaleyer (1923) 32 CLR 159 Giuriato v Attorney-General (Tas) (1997) 6 Tas R 344 Howard v Watling [2002] TASSC 87 Jones v Bass Express Ships Ltd [1998] TASSC 22 OD Transport (Australia) Pty Ltd (in liq) v OD Transport Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 1653 Queensland v J L Holdings Pty Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 146 Squire v Squi…
Jones, Robert William v Bass Express Ships Limited and Brambles Australia Limited
[1998] TASSC 22

…wes v Chaleyer (1923) 32 CLR 159 Giuriato v Attorney-General (Tas) (1997) 6 Tas R 344 Howard v Watling [2002] TASSC 87 Jones v Bass Express Ships Ltd [1998] TASSC 22 OD Transport (Australia) Pty Ltd (in liq) v OD Transport Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 1653 Queensland v J L Holdings Pty Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 146 Squire v Squire…
OD Transport (Australia) Pty Ltd (in liq) v OD Transport Pty Ltd
[1998] FCA 1653

…344 Howard v Watling [2002] TASSC 87 Jones v Bass Express Ships Ltd [1998] TASSC 22 OD Transport (Australia) Pty Ltd (in liq) v OD Transport Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 1653 Queensland v J L Holdings Pty Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 146 Squire v Squire [1972] 1 Ch 391 Stone James (a firm) v Pioneer Concrete (WA) Pty Ltd [1985] WAR…
Queensland v JL holdings Pty Ltd
[1997] HCA 1

…Express Ships Ltd [1998] TASSC 22 OD Transport (Australia) Pty Ltd (in liq) v OD Transport Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 1653 Queensland v J L Holdings Pty Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 146 Squire v Squire [1972] 1 Ch 391 Stone James (a firm) v Pioneer Concrete (WA) Pty Ltd [1985] WAR 233 Tony Sadler Pty Ltd v McLeod Nominees Pty Ltd (19…
Bowes v Chaleyer
[1923] HCA 15

…Bowes v Chaleyer (1923) 32 CLR 159 Giuriato v Attorney-General (Tas) (1997) 6 Tas R 344 Howard v Watling [2002] TASSC 87 Jones v Bass Express Ships Ltd [1998] TASSC 22 OD Transport (Australia) Pty Ltd (in liq) v OD Transport Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 1653 Queensland v J L Holdings Pty Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 146 Squire v Squire…

Legislation cited in this decision · 1

Limitation Act 1935 (WA)
38 2 mentions