Shannon v Lee Chun

This case involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The original action was brought by Phillip Lee Chun (the plaintiff) against Sarah Shannon (the defendant), claiming for money lent and breach of contract. After a first trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, the Full Court ordered a new trial. At the second trial, the plaintiff was permitted to amend his pleadings to introduce a new contractual claim, and again obtained a verdict for the full amount. The defendant's subsequent motion for a new trial was dismissed by the Full Court.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the amendment to the plaintiff's pleadings was properly allowed, and if so, whether it should have been permitted without imposing specific terms as to costs. The Court also considered whether there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on the new case presented by the plaintiff.

The High Court held that the amendment was permissible, applying the principle that amendments should generally be allowed if any resulting harm can be compensated by terms, particularly costs, to ensure the determination of the real question in controversy. The Court found that while the amendment was properly allowed, the defendant was not adequately compensated by merely being granted an adjournment. Therefore, the Court varied the Supreme Court's order to impose specific terms regarding costs, ensuring the defendant was not unjustly prejudiced by the amendment. The Court also confirmed that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find a verdict for the plaintiff on the substituted contract.

The appeal was dismissed, but the order of the Supreme Court was varied as to costs. The plaintiff was to receive his costs of the first trial on the second scale, less costs solely occasioned by the claim for £250 at the first trial and down to the time of the amendment, which were to be allowed to the defendant on the first scale, to be set off against the plaintiff's costs. The plaintiff was ordered to pay two-thirds of the defendant's taxed costs of the appeal.