Rawson v National Jet Systems Pty Ltd - [2005] ACTSC 101

RAWSON v NATIONAL JET SYSTEMS PTY LTD
[2005] ACTSC 101 (13 October 2005)

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – motion seeking leave to amend statement of claim pursuant to O 32 r 1 of the Supreme Court Rules (ACT) – circumstances when Court will refuse leave to amend a pleading – purpose of pleadings – requirement that a statement of claim give defendants notice of the case they have to meet

Civil Aviation Act 1988 (Cth)
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 75AD
Supreme Court Rules (ACT), O 23 rr 2, 4, O 24 r 5, O 32 r 1

Ainsworth v Burden [2005] NSWCA 174
Banque Commericale SA en liquidation v Akhil Holdings Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 279
Bloeman v Atkinson [1977] Qd R 291
Bruce v Odhams Press Limited [1936] 1 KB 697
Carlisle v Filaria Pty Ltd [2002] ACTSC 33
Clough and Rogers v Frog (1974) 4 ALR 615
Commonwealth of Australia v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394
Cropper v Smith (1884) 26 Ch D 700 at 710
Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Southport Corporation [1956] AC 218
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125
Heath v Goodwin (1986) 8 NSWLR 478
Hooker Corporation Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia (1986) 65 ACTR 32
Horton v Jones (No 2) (1939) 39 SR (NSW) 305
John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson (2000) 203 CLR 503
Ketteman v Hansel Properties Ltd [1987] AC 189
London Passenger Transport Board v Upson [1949] AC 155
Philipps v Philipps (1878) 4 QBD 127
Rubenstein v Truth and Sportsman Ltd [1960] VR 473
Sali v SPC Ltd (1993) 116 ALR 625
State of Queensland v JL Holdings Pty Limited (1997) 189 CLR 146
Williams v Wilcox (1838) 8 Ad & El 314; 112 ER 857

Odgers WB, Principles of Pleading and Practice, 12 ed, 1939

No. SC 509 of 2001

Judge: Stone J
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 13 October 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )
) No. SC 509 of 2001
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

BETWEEN:SUSAN RAWSON

Plaintiff

AND:NATIONAL JET SYSTEMS PTY LTD

First Defendant

BAE SYSTEMS PLC

Second Defendant

ORDER

Judge:  Stone J
Date:  13 October 2005
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The plaintiff has leave to file and serve an amended statement of claim no later than 4 November 2005.

Introduction

On 17 August 2005, I ordered that the plaintiff’s notice of motion filed on 1 September 2004 seeking leave to amend the statement of claim in the form of the proposed amended statement of claim (‘the PASC’) be dismissed and made further consequential orders. I said that I would publish my reasons at a later date. These are my reasons.

Background

On 1 August 2001, the plaintiff filed an originating application and statement of claim in this Court alleging that the first defendant (‘National Jet Systems’) and the second defendant (‘BAE Systems’) had breached their respective duties of care to her and, as a result of these alleged breaches, she…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Rawson v National Jet Systems Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2005] ACTSC 101
Decision Date: 13 October 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Rawson v National Jet Systems Pty Ltd, the plaintiff sought leave to amend their statement of claim. This application was made pursuant to the relevant rules of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The primary dispute revolved around whether the plaintiff should be allowed to amend their statement of claim to include additional allegations and claims against the defendant, National Jet Systems Pty Ltd. The court had to determine whether the amendment would be in the interests of justice and whether it would comply with the principles of notice and fairness to the defendant.

The legal issues before the court included whether the amendment would prejudice the defendant, whether the amendment was being sought in good faith, and whether the amendment would provide the defendant with adequate notice of the case they had to meet. The court examined whether the proposed amendment would introduce new causes of action that had not been previously disclosed and whether the delay in seeking the amendment was justifiable. The court also considered whether the amendment would significantly alter the nature of the defendant’s defence.

In its reasoning, the court held that the plaintiff’s motion to amend the statement of claim should be dismissed. The court found that the amendment would introduce new causes of action that were not previously disclosed, which would prejudice the defendant. Additionally, the court noted that the plaintiff had delayed in seeking the amendment, which further supported the decision to refuse leave. The court emphasised that the purpose of pleadings is to give the defendant fair notice of the case they must meet, and the proposed amendment did not meet this requirement. Consequently, the court concluded that allowing the amendment would not be in the interests of justice.

The final orders of the court were that the plaintiff’s motion to amend the statement of claim be dismissed. The court further ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of the motion, which were assessed on the standard basis. These orders reflected the court’s determination that the amendment would not be granted due to the potential prejudice to the defendant and the failure to provide adequate notice.

Orders

Orders of the court

On 17 August 2005, I ordered that the plaintiff’s notice of motion filed on 1 September 2004 seeking leave to amend the statement of claim in the form of the proposed amended statement of claim (‘the PASC’) be dismissed and made further consequential orders. I said that I would publish my reasons at a later date. These are my reasons.

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.