Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Williamson v Elders Rural Services Australia Limited (No. 1) [2017] NSWSC 1644 Hearing dates: 28 November 2017 Date of orders: 28 November 2017 Decision date: 28 November 2017 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Johnson J Decision: Application by Plaintiff to amend Third Further Amended Statement of Claim is refused.
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - application by Plaintiff to amend pleadings to claim exemplary damages - application made at conclusion of evidence and before closing addresses at substantive hearing - previous application to amend to claim exemplary damages refused - application refused Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 Cases Cited: Williamson v Elders Limited [2017] NSWSC 667 Texts Cited: --- Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Hugh Francis Arthur Williamson (Plaintiff)
Elders Rural Services Australia Limited (Defendant)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr HFA Williamson (Plaintiff in person)
Mr DAB Robertson (Defendant)
Mr HFA Williamson (Plaintiff)
Cowell Clarke (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2015/226349 Publication restriction: ---
Judgment
-
JOHNSON J: Yesterday, I embarked upon the hearing of the Plaintiff's claim for damages against the Defendant, Elders Rural Services Australia Limited. The evidence has proceeded over two days and is now complete.
-
At the conclusion of the evidence, the Plaintiff (who is unpresented) rose to indicate that he wished to make an application to amend the Third Further Amended Statement of Claim to seek exemplary damages against the Defendant upon the basis (he said) that a finding might be made that the conduct of a Mr Hannan was fraudulent or involved fraud.
-
On 23 May 2017, Beech-Jones J determined an application by the Plaintiff to further amend what was, at that stage, the Second Further Amended Statement of Claim. His Honour gave reasons permitting limited leave to the Plaintiff to so amend: Williamson v Elders Limited [2017] NSWSC 667. In the course of that judgment, Beech-Jones J noted that one of the applications made by the Plaintiff was to plead an entitlement to exemplary damages based upon an allegation of fraud by the Defendant arising not just from the conduct of Mr Hannan, but from an alleged direction said to have been given by the Defendant as to how Mr Hannan would conduct himself. His Honour referred to that application to amend at paragraphs 9 and 18 and following of his judgment. The application to amend in that respect was refused.
-
Accordingly, yesterday the Court embarked upon the hearing of the Plaintiff's claim for relief as contained in the Third Further Amended Statement of Claim filed on 3 June 2017 and the Defence to the Third Further Amended Statement of Claim filed 19 June 2017. As I have said, the evidence is now complete and the Court will move to closing addresses shortly.
-
The short answer to the Plaintiff's application to amend is that it has already been rejected by Beech-Jones J on 23 May 2017. Nothing has happened at the hearing yesterday or today that alters the position, in an evidentiary sense, as I understand it, from that as it stood when Beech-Jones J considered the matter on 23 May 2017.
-
Apart from anything else, s.56 Civil Procedure Act 2005 governs the conduct of the proceedings and the obligation of the parties to facilitate the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in dispute. It is for the Court to act to promote the purposes in s.56 and to have regard to other case management provisions referred to in subsequent sections of the Civil Procedure Act 2005.
-
To that end, the Court has embarked upon the hearing of the Plaintiff's claim. That hearing is complete in an evidentiary sense. There is no basis for allowing the Plaintiff to further amend the pleadings with such application having been, in any event, already rejected by another Judge on an earlier occasion.
-
The application is refused.
**********
- AGLC
- Williamson v Elders Rural Services Australia Limited (No. 1) [2017] NSWSC 1644
- Case
- [2017] NSWSC 1644
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff could amend his pleadings at such a late stage, despite a prior refusal to do so. The central issue was whether there were any exceptional circumstances that warranted allowing the amendment, particularly given that the amendment sought to introduce a new claim for damages that had not been previously raised. The court needed to balance the plaintiff's right to amend pleadings against the potential for prejudice to the defendant, and the need to maintain the efficiency and fairness of the judicial process.
The court held that exceptional circumstances did not exist in this case. The plaintiff had failed to demonstrate any new evidence or changed legal position that would justify the amendment. The court emphasised the importance of finality in litigation and noted that allowing amendments at such a late stage could lead to unfair surprise and prejudice to the defendant. The application to amend was therefore refused. The court maintained that the refusal of the earlier application to amend should stand, and there were no new factors that would alter this decision.
The court's final orders were that the plaintiff's application to amend the pleadings to include a claim for exemplary damages was refused. The previous denial of the amendment to claim exemplary damages remained in effect. The substantive hearing proceeded without the amendment.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.