Smith v Wikramanayake

The dispute in *Smith v Wikramanayake* concerned an application for leave to appeal a decision of the primary judge. The applicant, Smith, sought to appeal an order that had refused leave to amend pleadings in earlier proceedings. The respondents were Wikramanayake and others.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary judge had erred in refusing leave to amend the pleadings. This refusal was based on the principle of *res judicata*, specifically the doctrine of *Anshun* estoppel, in circumstances where the later proceedings arose from the same matrix of facts as earlier proceedings. The court also considered whether the proposed amendments fell within an undertaking given by the defendants in the earlier proceedings.

The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge had correctly applied the doctrine of *Anshun* estoppel. The court reasoned that the applicant had not demonstrated that the later proceedings were not covered by the undertaking given in the earlier proceedings, which had been given in exchange for the refusal of leave to amend at that time. The court concluded that the applicant had failed to establish any error in the primary judge's decision.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the summons for leave to appeal and ordered the applicant to pay the respondents' costs of the proceedings in the Court of Appeal.