Ladmore v Ashton - [2024] NSWSC 1298

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ladmore v Ashton [2024] NSWSC 1298
Hearing dates: 15 October 2024
Date of orders: 16 October 2024
Decision date: 16 October 2024
Jurisdiction: Equity - Real Property List
Before: Williams J
Decision:
Plaintiffs’ application for leave to amend dismissed.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE — Pleadings — Amendment — Late application for amendment — Application dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) ss 56, 58, 64

Cases Cited:
Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175; [2009] HCA 27
Loureiro v Mac Aus Unit Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2022] NSWSC 226
Rennie Golledge Pty Ltd v Ballard (2012) 82 NSWLR 231; [2012] NSWCA 376
Young v Queensland Trustees Ltd (1956) 99 CLR 560; [1956] HCA 51

Texts Cited:
N/A

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Richard Barnes Ladmore (First Plaintiff)
Jan-Louise Ladmore (Second Plaintiff)
Joan Marie Ashton (First Defendant)
John Daniel Quinn (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
G M McGrath (Plaintiffs)
T Catanzariti (Defendants)
Solicitors:
Morrisons Law (Plaintiffs)
Bradley Allen Love Lawyers (Defendants)

File Number(s): 2019/262065
Publication restriction: N/A

JUDGMENT

Introduction

The plaintiffs in these proceedings are Mr Richard Ladmore and Ms Jan-Louise Ladmore. The defendants are the executors of the estate of the late Mr Neil Quinn, who died in October 2018.
The plaintiffs commenced these proceedings in 2019. In their amended statement of claim filed in February 2023, the plaintiffs claim declaratory and other relief founded on the doctrines of promissory estoppel and proprietary estoppel, and damages for breach of contract. Both the estoppel claims and the contract claim arise out of representations or promises allegedly made by the late Mr Quinn to one or both of the plaintiffs orally over a period of time from 2007 to 2018.
The final hearing commenced on 14 October 2024, with an estimated hearing time of ten days.
These reasons for judgment concern the plaintiffs’ application for leave to amend their existing pleadings by filing a further amended statement of claim in the form handed up to the Court immediately after the luncheon adjournment on the second day of the hearing. The defendants oppose the application for leave to amend.

Principles

In determining the plaintiffs’ application for leave to amend the Court must exercise the discretion under s 64 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) in a manner that seeks to give effect to the overriding purpose of facilitating the just, quick, and cheap resolution of the real issues in the proceedings.^[1]
1. Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 56.
Section 64(2) provides that, subject to s 58, all necessary amendments are to be made for the purpose of determining the real questions raised by or depending on the proceedings.
The real questions raised by or depending on the proceedings are “the issues raised, perhaps unclearly, in the pleadings” prior to the application for leave to amend, and the issues that flow consequentially from the issues raised by the pleadings.^[2]
2. Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd…

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 Ladmore v Ashton

Details

AGLC: Ladmore v Ashton [2024] NSWSC 1298
Case: [2024] NSWSC 1298
Decision Date: 16 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ladmore v Ashton was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff, Ladmore, sought to amend their statement of claim more than a year after filing it, to add a new cause of action against the defendant, Ashton. The defendant opposed the application on the basis that it was an abuse of process and that the delay in seeking the amendment was unjustifiable. The primary focus of the court was to determine whether the plaintiff's application for amendment should be granted, considering the delay and the potential prejudice to the defendant.

The court considered several factors, including the nature of the proposed amendment, the stage of the proceedings, the reasons for the delay, and the potential prejudice to the defendant. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that litigation is conducted fairly and efficiently, and that parties are not unfairly prejudiced by unreasonable delays. The court held that the plaintiff's delay in seeking to amend the statement of claim was significant and that there was no satisfactory explanation for the delay. The court also found that the defendant would be prejudiced if the amendment was allowed, as it would require the defendant to prepare a defence to a new cause of action that had not been previously disclosed.

The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff's application to amend the statement of claim, holding that the delay was unjustifiable and that allowing the amendment would result in an abuse of process. The court emphasised that parties must act promptly and diligently in litigation, and that delays in seeking amendments to pleadings must be justified. The court also noted that the potential prejudice to the defendant was significant, as it would require the defendant to prepare a defence to a new cause of action that had not been previously disclosed. The court held that the plaintiff's application should be dismissed, and that the defendant was entitled to an appropriate costs order.

Orders