Lucas Stuart Pty Limited v Hemmes Hermitage Pty Limited
Case
•
[2012] NSWSC 1184
•28 September 2012
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Lucas Stuart Pty Limited v Hemmes Hermitage Pty Limited [2012] NSWSC 1184
[2012] NSWSC 1184
28 September 2012
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Lucas Stuart Pty Limited brought an action against Hemmes Hermitage Pty Limited seeking damages for alleged breaches of contract. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary issue for determination was whether the plaintiff's application to amend its statement of claim to include a new cause of action and to adduce further evidence should be granted. The plaintiff sought to include a new cause of action relating to the alleged negligence of the defendant in relation to the construction of a building. The plaintiff also sought to adduce further evidence to support its existing claims.
The court considered several factors in determining whether to grant the application. These factors included the likely costs and delay that would be incurred if the application were not granted, the explanation provided by the plaintiff for the delay in making the application, and whether a hearing date was imminent. The court found that the plaintiff had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay and that the likely costs and delay were not excessive. The court also found that a hearing date was not imminent and that there was no significant prejudice to the defendant in allowing the amendment. The court therefore granted the application, allowing the plaintiff to amend its statement of claim and adduce further evidence.
The court made an order that the plaintiff's application to amend its statement of claim and adduce further evidence was granted. The court also made an order that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the application. The court noted that the defendant's opposition to the application had been unreasonable and that the defendant's costs would be taxed on an indemnity basis.
The court considered several factors in determining whether to grant the application. These factors included the likely costs and delay that would be incurred if the application were not granted, the explanation provided by the plaintiff for the delay in making the application, and whether a hearing date was imminent. The court found that the plaintiff had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay and that the likely costs and delay were not excessive. The court also found that a hearing date was not imminent and that there was no significant prejudice to the defendant in allowing the amendment. The court therefore granted the application, allowing the plaintiff to amend its statement of claim and adduce further evidence.
The court made an order that the plaintiff's application to amend its statement of claim and adduce further evidence was granted. The court also made an order that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the application. The court noted that the defendant's opposition to the application had been unreasonable and that the defendant's costs would be taxed on an indemnity basis.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Amendment of Pleadings
-
Costs
-
Discovery & Disclosure
-
Delay
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
4
Statutory Material Cited
3
Ainsworth v Burden
[2005] NSWCA 174
Queensland v JL holdings Pty Ltd
[1997] HCA 1
Queensland v JL holdings Pty Ltd
[1997] HCA 1