Legal Research
Cases
Stuart v Hanna [No 3]

Stuart v Hanna [No 3]

Case [2018] WASC 208 27 June 2018

Jurisdiction

Standing

Appeal

Discovery & Disclosure

Limitation Periods

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   STUART -v- HANNA [No 3] [2018] WASC 208
CORAM:   TOTTLE J
HEARD:   27 JUNE 2018
DELIVERED          :   27 JUNE 2018
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1997 of 2012
BETWEEN:   RICHARD ANTHONY STUART
Plaintiff
AND
JULIAN PHILIP HANNA
First Defendant
TERRENCE RONALD GRAMMER
Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Pleadings - Application for leave to amend - Statement of claim - Writ of summons - Where new cause of action raised - Where leave sought at late stage of application - Whether reasonable cause of action disclosed - Whether defendants prejudiced

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 1 r 4A, O 1 r 4B

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr S J Howells
First Defendant	:	Mr J A Thomson SC & Mr S D Hubbard
Second Defendant	:	Mr D Molony

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Ilberys Lawyers
First Defendant	:	DLA Piper
Second Defendant	:	Armeli & Molony Lawyers

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27; (2009) 239 CLR 175
Elliott v Seymour (1999) FCA 976
General Steel Industries v Commissioner for Railways (1964) 112 CLR 125
Great Southern Finance Pty Ltd (in liq) v Rhodes [2014] WASC 431
Hightime Investments Pty Ltd v Lungan (No 2) [2010] WASC 296
Lee v Abedian [2016] QSC 92
R v Associated Northern Collieries [1911] HCA 73; (1911) 14 CLR 387
Samsung C & T Corporation v Loots [2016] WASC 330
Sino Iron Pty Ltd v Mineralogy Pty Ltd [2014] WASC 406

TOTTLE J:

Introduction

This is an application for leave:
(a)to amend the writ of summons filed on 6 December 2012 by joining two additional defendants, Mr Richard Yeates as the third defendant, and Mr Terrence Streeter as the fourth defendant; and
(b)to re-amend the statement of claim to raise a new cause of action against Mr Hanna, who is the first defendant, and Mr Yeates and Mr Streeter, being a claim of damages for 'unlawful means' conspiracy.
The application is brought by a chamber summons issued on 30 April 2018. The chamber summons was supported by an affidavit affirmed by Mr Stuart, the plaintiff, on 6 April 2018. A number of paragraphs to Mr Stuart's affidavit were struck out on the basis that they contained inadmissible material.

Background

The events that are the subject of this action took place between 1999 and July 2011. Progress in the action has been slow. Save for the possibility of the further amendment to the statement of claim raised by the present application, pleadings have closed.
The parties have filed their witness statements on issues concerning liability.[1] There were delays by the defendants in filing their witness statements. A number of statements were filed later than required by the original case management orders, albeit that Mr Stuart consented to extensions of time.
[1] A direction was made at an earlier stage in the proceedings that the liability…

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.

Continue reading Stuart v Hanna [No 3]

Details

AGLC: Stuart v Hanna [No 3] [2018] WASC 208
Case: [2018] WASC 208
Decision Date: 27 JUNE 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Stuart v Hanna [No 3] involved a dispute where the plaintiff sought leave to amend her statement of claim. The plaintiff, Stuart, aimed to introduce a new cause of action against the defendants, Hanna, at a late stage of the proceedings. The application for leave to amend was made in the context of an ongoing legal battle, and the plaintiff sought to incorporate this new cause of action in her existing statement of claim. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff had disclosed a reasonable cause of action that warranted leave to amend her statement of claim, particularly at such an advanced stage in the proceedings. Additionally, the court had to consider whether granting leave to amend would cause any prejudice to the defendants, Hanna. The court's task was to balance the plaintiff's right to amend her pleadings with the need to avoid unnecessary delay and potential prejudice to the defendants.

The court found that the plaintiff had disclosed a reasonable cause of action that, if proven, could potentially entitle her to relief. However, the court also weighed the fact that the application for leave to amend was made at a late stage, which could potentially prejudice the defendants. The court concluded that, while the new cause of action was reasonable, the prejudice to the defendants outweighed the plaintiff's right to amend her pleadings. Consequently, the court refused the application for leave to amend the statement of claim.

In summary, the court held that the plaintiff's new cause of action was reasonable, but the late stage of the proceedings and the potential prejudice to the defendants led to the denial of the application for leave to amend the statement of claim. The plaintiff's application was dismissed, and no amendment was permitted.

Orders