Low v Romaro

The appeal in Low v Romaro was heard by Mitchell Javauge JA in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The appellants, Ryan Low, AMP Financial Planning Pty Limited, and Cyberside Investments Pty Ltd, sought leave to appeal against orders made by the master permitting amendments to the writs of summons in the primary proceedings. The respondents, Terry Stephen Romaro and Pikachu Pty Ltd, opposed the appeal. The central legal issues were whether the amendments introduced new causes of action that were statute-barred and whether, if the amendments were permissible, it was in the interests of justice to allow them given the delay and potential prejudice to the appellants.

The Court of Appeal held that leave to appeal should be refused because the appellants had not demonstrated that a substantial injustice would be done if the master's decision remained undisturbed. The Court noted that if the appellants' contention that the claim based on events in 2007 was statute-barred was correct, they would succeed at trial. The burden of defending the claim at trial did not constitute substantive prejudice for the purposes of the general principles governing the grant of leave to appeal from interlocutory decisions. The Court also found that the alleged prejudice to the appellants in defending a claim based on events that occurred long ago did not amount to substantive prejudice. The circumstances in which Mr Romaro obtained the ING policies were always a necessary aspect of the proceedings, and the discussions between Mr Low and Mr Romaro prior to the ING policies being taken out were relevant background to those circumstances.

The Court concluded that it was in the interests of justice to refuse leave to appeal and dismiss the appeal. The appeal was dismissed, and costs followed the event.