Lamers v Lamers (No 4)

Case [2019] VSC 510


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMERCIAL COURT

S CI 2015 05124

ANDREW JOHN LAMERS Plaintiff
v  
JOHANNES ANTONIUS LAMERS First Defendant
ORANA PARK PTY LTD (ACN 087 109 895) both in its own capacity and as trustee of the John Lamers Family Trust Second Defendant

---

JUDGE:

Lansdowne AsJ

WHERE HELD:

Melbourne

DATE OF HEARING:

27 June 2019

DATE OF JUDGMENT:

1 August 2019

CASE MAY BE CITED AS:

Lamers v Lamers & Anor (No 4)

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:

[2019] VSC 510

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Leave sought to further amendment to statement of claim to add a further defendant – Whether objection is properly taken by existing defendants – Whether leave should be refused to add claim against proposed new defendant for being statute barred – Whether loss is sufficiently pleaded – Whether specific pleading is required of matters stipulates in s 51(1)(b) or s 59 of the Wrongs Act1958 (Vic) – Whether further particulars should be ordered – Leave granted.

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel Solicitors
For the Plaintiff Mr J L Evans Oakleys Legal
For the Defendant Mr D B Clough Macpherson Kelley

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction and summary............................................................................................................... 1

Proposed claim against BRB............................................................................................................ 3

Proprietary estoppel claim against John and OPPL................................................................ 3

Proposed claim against BRB....................................................................................................... 6

Submissions........................................................................................................................................ 9

Defendant’s submissions............................................................................................................. 9

The claim is statute barred................................................................................................. 9

Pleading of causation and loss and damage................................................................. 10

Inadequate pleading of Wrongs Act requirements...................................................... 10

Request for particulars..................................................................................................... 11

Plaintiff’s submissions............................................................................................................... 11

The claim is statute barred............................................................................................... 12

Pleading of loss and damage........................................................................................... 12

Wrongs Act......................................................................................................................... 12

Request for particulars..................................................................................................... 13

Consideration.................................................................................................................................... 13

Is it appropriate for the current defendants to take these objections?................................ 13

Statute barred?............................................................................................................................. 15

Pleading of loss and damage.................................................................................................... 17

Wrongs Act......................................................................................................................... 18

Request for further particulars.................................................................................................. 21

Conclusion and orders.................................................................................................................... 22

HER HONOUR:

Introduction and summary

  1. These reasons concern the plaintiff’s application made by summons filed 15 March 2019 to further amend his statement of claim.  The plaintiff (also described in these reasons as ‘Andrew’) commenced the proceeding by writ and statement of claim filed 30 September 2015.  The defendants filed their defence on 2 November 2015.  Thereafter the proceeding has had a long interlocutory history, including a series of discovery disputes and a previous application to amend the statement of claim (‘Previous Application’) which was partly successful. [1]  In these reasons I refer to my reasons in relation to that previous application as my ‘Previous Reasons’.  In accordance with the orders made consequent on the Previous Reasons the plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim on 15 March 2019 (‘Amended Statement of Claim’).  

    [1]Lamers v Lamers and anor (No 3) [2019] VSC 63.

  1. Andrew seeks relief against the first defendant (‘John’), who is his uncle, and the second defendant (‘OPPL’), a company in which they are each shareholders and of which they are the two directors, relating to a dairy farming enterprise near Leongatha.  Andrew alleges that as a result of representations made to him…

Continue reading Lamers v Lamers (No 4)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Lamers v Lamers (No 4) [2019] VSC 510
Case
[2019] VSC 510
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The court was asked to determine whether leave should be granted to the plaintiff to further amend her statement of claim to add an additional defendant. The defendants objected to the proposed amendment, arguing that the plaintiff had failed to adequately plead the claim against the proposed defendant. They also argued that the claim was statute barred and that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient particulars to support her claim. The court was required to decide whether the objection to the amendment was properly taken, whether leave should be granted to add the claim against the proposed defendant, and whether the plaintiff had sufficiently pleaded the loss caused by the alleged negligence.

The court found that the objection to the amendment was properly taken by the existing defendants. However, it also found that the plaintiff had adequately pleaded the claim against the proposed defendant, and that the claim was not statute barred. The court further found that the plaintiff had not been required to plead specific particulars of the matters stipulated in s 51(1)(b) or s 59 of the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic). The court granted leave to the plaintiff to further amend her statement of claim to add the proposed defendant, and ordered that further particulars be provided to support the claim.

The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the relevant law and the facts of the case. The court found that the plaintiff had adequately pleaded the claim against the proposed defendant, and that the claim was not statute barred. The court also found that the plaintiff had not been required to plead specific particulars of the matters stipulated in s 51(1)(b) or s 59 of the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic). The court granted leave to the plaintiff to further amend her statement of claim to add the proposed defendant, and ordered that further particulars be provided to support the claim. This decision provides guidance to practitioners on the requirements for pleading claims and obtaining leave to amend statements of claim in similar cases.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.