Matic v Simpson - [2020] TASSC 25

[2020] TASSC 25

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Matic v Simpson [2020] TASSC 25

PARTIES:  MATIC, Maree
  v
  SIMPSON NETWORKS PTY LIMITED
  SIMPSON, Karena Lee
  SIMPSON, James Robert

FILE NO:  451/2018
DELIVERED ON:  23 June 2020
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  15 June 2020
JUDGMENT OF:  Holt AsJ

CATCHWORDS:

Procedure – Civil proceedings in State and Territory Courts – Court's supervision – Amendment – Time for amendment – Amendment of defence – Introduction of counterclaim – Would delay trial – Leave to introduce counterclaim refused.
Supreme Court Rules 2000 (Tas), r 427.

Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27, 239 CLR 17, referred to.

Aust Dig Procedure [1111]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Plaintiff:  S Stuckey QC
             Defendants:  N Evans
Solicitors:
             Plaintiff:  Williams Winter
             Defendants:  Aptum Legal

Judgment Number: [2020] TASSC 25
Number of paragraphs: 30

Serial No 25/2020
File No 451/2018

MAREE MATIC v SIMPSON NETWORKS PTY LIMITED
and KARENA LEE SIMPSON and JAMES ROBERT SIMPSON

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT HOLT AsJ
23 June 2020

A late application by the defendants to amend their pleading

On 15 May 2020 the defendants filed an application, specified as being made pursuant to r 427(1), for leave to amend their defence and for the first defendant to introduce a counterclaim.
The subrule is as follows:
"At any time before judgment the Court or a judge may grant leave to a party to amend any process or pleading in such manner and on such terms as may be just."
The application has been made at a time when otherwise the trial would be about to occur. On 30 September 2019 the solicitors for the parties applied for consent orders dealing with a timetable for the filing and service of a court book and opening submissions and for the allocation of a trial date no earlier than 7 December 2019. Orders were made accordingly. The timetable was varied by consent order made 6 February 2020, which order extended the time for the filing of the court book to 26 February 2020. On the same day that the extension of time was granted the week commencing 27 April 2020 was allocated for the trial. The COVID-19 pandemic restrictions intervened and the allocated trial judge called the case on for directions. The defendants had engaged, or were in the process of engaging, new solicitors and further attention needed to be given to the suitability of counsel and the witnesses appearing at the trial by audio visual link.
At the directions hearing, on 1 April, the listing for trial was vacated with the directions hearing to be resumed on 1 May. Upon the resumption, the allocated trial judge advised that a trial commencing 24 June might be able to be accommodated by the Court. At this directions hearing, counsel for the defendants foreshadowed an application to amend and it was ordered that any such application be filed by 15 May. The application, which has been…

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 Matic v Simpson

Details

AGLC: Matic v Simpson [2020] TASSC 25
Case: [2020] TASSC 25
Decision Date: 23 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Matic v Simpson came before the court in relation to a dispute over the introduction of a counterclaim by the defendant. The plaintiff, Matic, had initiated proceedings against the defendant, Simpson, and the defendant sought to amend its defence to include a counterclaim. The court was tasked with determining whether the defendant should be granted leave to amend its defence to include a counterclaim, considering the timing and potential for delay.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendant should be permitted to introduce a counterclaim at that stage of the proceedings, given the timing and the potential for significant delay to the trial. The court needed to weigh the interests of justice, including the need for a fair and expeditious trial, against the defendant's right to raise a counterclaim.

In its decision, the court considered the principles governing amendments to pleadings, particularly in relation to counterclaims. The court noted that the introduction of a counterclaim at a late stage in proceedings could potentially cause significant delay, which would not be in the interests of justice. The court concluded that the defendant's application to introduce a counterclaim should be refused, as it would likely lead to an undesirable delay in the proceedings. Consequently, the court denied the defendant's request to amend its defence to include a counterclaim.

The court's final order was that the defendant's application to amend its defence to include a counterclaim was refused. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural timelines and the need to avoid unnecessary delays in the judicial process.

Orders