Namberry Craft Pty Ltd v Watson

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

No. 2010/03876

NAMBERRY CRAFT PTY LTD

(ACN 075 497 540) AND MARK PEZZIN

Plaintiffs

v

DANIEL ANDREW WATSON

First Defendant

and

MAGISTRATES’ COURT OF VICTORIA

Second Defendant

---

JUDGE:	VICKERY J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOUNE
DATE OF HEARING:	29 MARCH 2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	12 APRIL 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	NAMBERRY CRAFT v WATSON
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 136

---

Practice and Procedure — Judicial Review of Orders made by Magistrates’ Court - Application for amendment of pleadings – Circumstances in which Certiorari or Prohibition may issue in respect of grant of amendments – Delay in resumption of trial - Explanation for delay – Prejudice - Jurisdiction of Magistrates’ Court to grant amendments - Rules 1.12, 35.02 Magistrates' Court Civil Procedure Rules 2009 – Rules 36.01, 36.03 Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules2005 - Aon Risk Services Australia v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27 considered and applied.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr D.J. Christie	Wotton + Kearney
For the First Defendant	Mr L.M. Watts	Rose Mary Brondolino & Co
For the Second Defendant	No Appearance

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1
The Facts Open to be Found........................................................................................................ 4
The Role of Certiorari and Prohibition...................................................................................... 7
Aon Risk Services Australia v ANU............................................................................................... 9
Jurisdiction to Grant the Amendment..................................................................................... 12
Discretion to Amend................................................................................................................... 19

Doing Justice Between the Parties........................................................................................... 20
Delay........................................................................................................................................ 20
Costs......................................................................................................................................... 22
Unfair and Non-Compensable Prejudice................................................................................. 22
Case Management Issues......................................................................................................... 22
Public Confidence.................................................................................................................... 23
Explanation for Amendment................................................................................................... 23

Conclusion and Orders.............................................................................................................. 24

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

1. “Kahuna” is a Hawaiian word which can be used to describe a "priest, sorcerer, magician, wizard, or expert in any profession”.[1]  “The Big Kahuna” in surfing language can be traced back to the 1959 film Gidget, where the name was applied to the leader of a group of surfers.  From that origin, it evolved to describe the best surfer on the beach.

   [1]Pukui & Elbert (1986).

1. Surfing is a pleasurable pastime but it is well stocked with chance.  Sandbars, rocks, reefs, marine creatures and perhaps above all, other surfers, combine with the ever present challenges of unpredictable wave patterns.

1. Considerations such as these, no doubt, also inspired adoption of the name “The Big Kahuna” by certain syndicates of investors in the Australian lottery known as “Tattslotto”.  In particular, the name was used by syndicates of persons who were accustomed to purchasing shares in large Tattslotto drawings from an agency conducted by the First Plaintiff, Namberry Craft Pty Ltd (“Namberry Craft”), and its director and business proprietor, the Second Plaintiff, Mark Pezzin (“Mr Pezzin”).

1. On 1 November 2008, in Tattslotto draw number 2847, the sorcery worked for “The Big Kahuna”.  The syndicate won a total of $867,000.  The Defendant, Daniel Watson (“Mr Watson”) claims that he was a member of The Big Kahuna syndicate for that draw, and is entitled to 10% of the winnings less the cost of his share…