Tanuvasa v USG Boral Building Products

Link copied
Case Copied 28 min read

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Tanuvasa v USG Boral Building Products [2022] NSWDC 319
Hearing dates: 15 and 22 July 2022
Date of orders: 5 August 2022
Decision date: 05 August 2022
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Judge Levy SC
Decision:

See paragraph [83] for orders.

Catchwords:

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – dismissal of belated application by the defendant seeking leave to amend the defence to plead a previously overlooked potential limitation bar defence – leave refused due to defendant’s tardy litigation conduct: s 58(2) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) – prejudice to the defendant outweighed by prejudice to the plaintiff

Legislation Cited:

Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 5B, s 5D, s 5F, s 5G, s 5H, s 5I, s 5R, s 5S

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 56, s 57, s 58, s 64

District Court Act 1973 (NSW), s 51(2)(b)

Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), s 50D

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 14.14, r 19.1, r 19.3

Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), s 151Z

Cases Cited:

Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175; [2009] HCA 27

Dare v Pulham [1982] HCA 70; 148 CLR 658

Fitzgerald v State of New South Wales [2017] NSWSC 1602

Johnson v State of New South Wales [2017] NSWSC 1591

Jones v State of New South Wales [2017] NSWSC 1601

Pomare v Whyte [2019] NSWCA 317

Wells v Commonwealth of Australia [2014] NSWSC 148

Category:Procedural rulings
Parties: Asela Rambo Tanuvasa (Plaintiff/respondent)
USG Boral Building Products Pty Ltd (Defendant/applicant)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr J Malouf (Plaintiff)
Mr R Coffey (Defendant)

Solicitors:
Gerard Malouf & Partners (Plaintiff)
Makinson d’Apice (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2020/361705
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

Table of Contents

Notice of motion

[1] – [3]

Factual background

[4] – [9]

Procedural history

[10] – [26]

The present notice of motion

[27] – [28]

Legislation

[29] – [34]

Evidence

[35] – [36]

Review of previous listings and case management orders

[37] – [40]

Course of hearing of the defendant’s notice of motion

[41] – [49]

Submissions of the parties

[50] – [64]

Consideration and determination

[65] – [81]

Disposition

[82]

Orders

[83]

Notice of motion

  1. I have before me a notice of motion filed by the defendant on 16 May 2022 whereby the defendant seeks leave to file an amended defence to belatedly raise a previously unpleaded limitation defence.

  2. If a defence to that effect were to be upheld, then without more, the plaintiff’s claim would necessarily fail. Initially, the plaintiff consented to the filing of the proposed amended defence, but he later withdrew his consent after the significance of that step was made clear to him in the course of the hearing of the defendant’s application for leave.

  3. These proceedings and the present application are governed by the provisions of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), (“CL Act”), and the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), (“CP Act”).

Factual background

  1. The factual background to the proceedings is that on…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Tanuvasa v USG Boral Building Products 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
[2022] NSWDC 319
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tanuvasa, the plaintiff, brought an action against USG Boral Building Products, the defendant, claiming damages for injuries sustained in a fall at a construction site. The defendant filed a late application seeking leave to amend its defence to include a limitation bar defence, which it had previously overlooked. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The defendant argued that the plaintiff's claim was time-barred, and thus, the amendment was necessary to address a previously overlooked defence. The plaintiff opposed the application, citing the defendant's tardy litigation conduct as a significant factor.

The court was required to determine whether the defendant's late application for leave to amend its defence should be granted. The court had to consider the provisions of section 58(2) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) and assess the prejudice to both parties if the amendment was allowed. The court also had to balance the defendant's right to a fair trial against the plaintiff's right to have their claim heard in a timely manner.

The court found that the defendant's tardiness in filing the application for leave to amend its defence significantly prejudiced the plaintiff, as it had already incurred costs and expenses in preparing for the trial. The court held that the defendant's right to a fair trial was outweighed by the prejudice caused to the plaintiff, and therefore, the application for leave to amend the defence was refused. The court emphasised that the defendant's conduct throughout the litigation process had been unsatisfactory, and this contributed to the decision not to grant the application.

The court ordered that the defendant's application for leave to amend its defence was dismissed. The trial proceeded as scheduled, and the defendant was required to proceed with its original defence. The court further ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph [83] for orders.

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.