JOYCE -v- PALASSIS [No 4] [2008] WASC 45
| Link to Appeal : |
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2008] WASC 45 | |
| Case No: | CIV:2134/1998 | 23 JANUARY 2008 | |
| Coram: | LE MIERE J | 7/04/08 | |
| 19 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application to amend statement of claim granted in part Application for injunction dismissed | ||
| 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 Statement of claim Deed of settlement and release Application to amend statement of claim Whether sufficient connection between proposed amendments to damage and loss and the material facts already pleaded Turns on own facts Civil practice and procedure Injunction Deed of settlement and release Application for injunction to restrain plaintiffs from amending the statement of claim Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Breen v Williams [1995] HCA 63; (1996) 186 CLR 71 Collie v Merlaw Nominees 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 Property Services (Australia) Pty Ltd v Citibank Savings Ltd [1998] FCA 564 Niven v Grant (1903) 29 VLR 102 P & V Industries Pty Ltd v Porto [2006] VSC 131; [2006] 14 VR 1 Pilmer v Duke Group Ltd (in liq) [2001] HCA 31; (2001) 207 CLR 165 Ravinder Rohini Pty Ltd v Krizaic [1991] FCA 318; (1991) 30 FCR 300 Tracy v Mandalay Pty Ltd [1953] HCA 9; (1953) 88 CLR 215 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CHAMBERS
- 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 - Statement of claim - Deed of settlement and release - Application to amend statement of claim - Whether sufficient connection between proposed amendments to damage and loss and the material facts already pleaded - Turns on own facts
Civil practice and procedure - Injunction - Deed of settlement and release - Application for injunction to restrain plaintiffs from amending the statement of claim - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Application to amend statement of claim granted in part
Application for injunction dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
First Plaintiffs : Ms G S Pitt
Second Plaintiff : Ms G S Pitt
First Defendant : Mr D H Solomon
Second Defendant :…
Continue reading Joyce v Palassis [No 4]
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Joyce v Palassis [No 4] [2008] WASC 45
- Case
- [2008] WASC 45
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether the proposed amendments to the plaintiffs' statement of claim were sufficiently connected to the material facts already pleaded, and whether an injunction should be granted to prevent the plaintiffs from making these amendments. The court had to weigh the relevance and necessity of the proposed changes in light of the existing pleadings and the terms of the Deed of Settlement and Release.
The court found that the proposed amendments to the statement of claim did not meet the required standard of connection to the material facts already pleaded. Consequently, the court dismissed the proposed amendments to the particulars of loss and damage. Additionally, the court ruled that it was unnecessary to consider the defendants' application for an injunction since the amendments in question were limited to particulars of loss and damage, which were not precluded by the Deed of Settlement and Release. Therefore, the application for an injunction was dismissed. The court also disallowed the proposed amendments to the prayer for relief, which were consequential upon the other disallowed amendments. The plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their statement of claim in the form of the minute of substituted statement of claim dated 11 December 2007, except for the disallowed amendments to particulars 6 to [18], [18A], and the consequential amendments to the prayer for relief.
The court's decision effectively curtailed the plaintiffs' ability to introduce new particulars of loss and damage that were not sufficiently connected to the facts already pleaded, while also dismissing the defendants' injunction application. The plaintiffs were permitted to proceed with their amended statement of claim, subject to the exclusion of the disallowed amendments.
Orders
Orders of the court
The proposed amendments to the statement of claim objected to by the defendants are not allowed.
It is strictly not necessary to consider the defendant's application for an injunction. In any event, the proposed amendments purport to do no more than amend the particulars of loss and damage. That is not precluded by the Deed. The defendant's application for injunction will be dismissed.
The amendment to the prayer for relief was said to be consequential upon the other proposed amendments. The parties accepted that if the amendments to proposed particular 6 of [18] and [18A] were disallowed then the amendments to the prayer for relief should also be disallowed. Accordingly, the proposed amendment to the prayer for relief are disallowed.
The plaintiffs will have leave to amend their statement of claim in the form of the minute of substituted statement of claim dated 11 December 2007 except for the amendments to insert particular 6 to [18], [18A] and the consequential amendments to the prayer for relief.
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.