SOIA -v- BENNETT [No 3] [2011] WASC 361
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2011] WASC 361 | |
| Case No: | CIV:1130/2003 | 15 DECEMBER 2011 | |
| Coram: | COMMISSIONER SLEIGHT | 22/12/11 | |
| 16 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application partly granted | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | KIM PETER SOIA PERSONALIZED TUITION SERVICES PTY LTD (ACN 009 099 71) MARTIN LAWRENCE BENNETT |
Catchwords: | Practice and procedure Application to amend statement of claim and particulars after the close of evidence Turns on its own facts |
Legislation: | Fair Trading Act 1987 (WA), s 9, s 79 Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 21 r 5 |
Case References: | Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27; (2009) 239 CRL 175 Barclay Mowlem Constructions Ltd v Dampier Port Authority [2006] WASC 281; (2006) 33 WAR 82 Custom Credit Corporation Ltd v Dallas Development Corporation Pty Ltd [2003] WASC 98 Dare v Pulham (1982) 148 CLR 658 Leotta v Public Transport Commission (NSW) (1976) 50 ALJR 666 Motium Pty Ltd v Arrow Electronics Australia Ltd [2011] WASCA 65 Soia v Bennett [No 2] [2011] WASC 133 Tony Sadler Pty Ltd v McLeod Nominees Pty Ltd (1994) 13 WAR 323 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
- First Plaintiff
PERSONALIZED TUITION SERVICES PTY LTD (ACN 009 099 71)
Second Plaintiff
AND
MARTIN LAWRENCE BENNETT
Defendant
Catchwords:
Practice and procedure - Application to amend statement of claim and particulars after the close of evidence - Turns on its own facts
Legislation:
Fair Trading Act 1987 (WA), s 9, s 79
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 21 r 5
Result:
Application partly granted
(Page 2)
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
First Plaintiff : Mr E W Alstergren & Mr C J Twidale
Second Plaintiff : Mr E W Alstergren & Mr C J Twidale
Defendant : Dr J T Schoombee
Solicitors:
First Plaintiff : Galic & Co
Second Plaintiff : Galic & Co
Defendant : Bennett & Co
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27; (2009) 239 CRL 175
Barclay Mowlem Constructions Ltd v Dampier Port Authority [2006] WASC 281; (2006) 33 WAR 82
Custom Credit Corporation Ltd v Dallas Development Corporation Pty Ltd [2003] WASC 98
Dare v Pulham (1982) 148 CLR 658
Leotta v Public Transport Commission (NSW) (1976) 50 ALJR 666
Motium Pty Ltd v Arrow Electronics Australia Ltd [2011] WASCA 65
Soia v Bennett [No 2] [2011] WASC 133
Tony Sadler Pty Ltd v McLeod Nominees Pty Ltd (1994) 13 WAR 323
(Page 3)
1 COMMISSIONER SLEIGHT: The plaintiffs seek leave to amend the statement of claim and further and better particulars to par 3 of the statement of claim. The…
Continue reading Soia v Bennett [No 3]
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Soia v Bennett [No 3] [2011] WASC 361
- Case
- [2011] WASC 361
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Soia v Bennett [No 3], the Federal Court was asked to consider an application by the plaintiff, Mr Soia, to amend his statement of claim and particulars after the close of evidence. The dispute at hand centred on whether Mr Soia's proposed amendments to his claims and particulars were permissible under the circumstances and whether the amendment would unfairly prejudice the defendant, Mr Bennett. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.
The primary legal issue that the court needed to address was the appropriateness of allowing the plaintiff to amend his statement of claim and particulars after the close of evidence. The court considered whether the proposed amendments were substantive or merely procedural, and whether they would cause an undue delay or prejudice to the defendant. The court also evaluated the circumstances under which the plaintiff sought to make the amendments and whether they were in line with the principles of justice and fairness.
The court held that the application to amend the statement of claim and particulars would be granted in part. The court found that the proposed amendments were largely procedural in nature and did not introduce new claims or significantly alter the scope of the proceedings. However, the court was cautious to ensure that the amendments would not cause undue delay or prejudice to the defendant. After considering the evidence presented and the arguments of both parties, the court concluded that the amendments could be made, but only to the extent that they did not prejudice the defendant's right to a fair trial.
The court's decision was grounded in the principles of justice and fairness, as well as the need to ensure that the proceedings were conducted in an efficient and effective manner. The court granted the application to amend the statement of claim and particulars in part, subject to certain conditions to protect the defendant's rights. This decision highlights the importance of striking a balance between the need for procedural flexibility and the need to protect the rights of all parties involved in the litigation process.
The primary legal issue that the court needed to address was the appropriateness of allowing the plaintiff to amend his statement of claim and particulars after the close of evidence. The court considered whether the proposed amendments were substantive or merely procedural, and whether they would cause an undue delay or prejudice to the defendant. The court also evaluated the circumstances under which the plaintiff sought to make the amendments and whether they were in line with the principles of justice and fairness.
The court held that the application to amend the statement of claim and particulars would be granted in part. The court found that the proposed amendments were largely procedural in nature and did not introduce new claims or significantly alter the scope of the proceedings. However, the court was cautious to ensure that the amendments would not cause undue delay or prejudice to the defendant. After considering the evidence presented and the arguments of both parties, the court concluded that the amendments could be made, but only to the extent that they did not prejudice the defendant's right to a fair trial.
The court's decision was grounded in the principles of justice and fairness, as well as the need to ensure that the proceedings were conducted in an efficient and effective manner. The court granted the application to amend the statement of claim and particulars in part, subject to certain conditions to protect the defendant's rights. This decision highlights the importance of striking a balance between the need for procedural flexibility and the need to protect the rights of all parties involved in the litigation process.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application partly granted
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.