Woods v Woods - [2000] NSWSC 179

CITATION: Woods v Woods [2000] NSWSC 179

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 1973/97

HEARING DATE(S): 24 February 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 24 February 2000

PARTIES :

Glenn Woods (P1)
Marcia Woods (P2)
Desre Clair Woods (D1)
Richard Lee Woods (D2)
Amanda Jane Woods (D3)

JUDGMENT OF: Hamilton J

COUNSEL : P P O'Loughlin (P1 & 2)
Alex Radojev (D1-3)

SOLICITORS: Clinch Neville Long (P1 & 2)
Karageorge & Co (D1-3)

CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE [101] - Supreme Court procedure - Practice under Supreme Court Rules - Amendment - Application to amend cross claim after hearing of substantive issues but before determination of relief - Whether delay causing prejudice - Order for costs as rectifying consequences

CASES CITED: Queensland v J L Holdings Pty Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 146

DECISION: Application to amend cross claim granted.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
HAMILTON J
THURSDAY, 24 FEBRUARY 2000
1973/97 GLENN WOODS & ANOR v DESRE CLAIR WOODS & ORS
JUDGMENT - On notice of motion for amendment of cross claim
HIS HONOUR:
1 This is a motion by the first defendant in these proceedings to file an amended cross claim. The amended cross-claim that she seeks to propound relies upon the breach of what is alleged to be an implied term in the contract between the plaintiffs and the first defendant to the effect that the plaintiffs should maintain the house property the subject of these proceedings in a condition fit for habitation by the first defendant during her occupation of it. There is evidence indicative of a failure after disputes broke out to carry out repairs to the property. One of the worst instances is a failure to reinstate a failed hot water system, leaving the property without hot water. The hot water system was reinstated after some time, but not apparently by the plaintiffs. If the amendment is allowed, a number of issues will arise. They will include whether or not a term of the contract such as is alleged is to be implied in the contract, whether or not that term is an essential term of the contract, whether or not the actions or inactions of the plaintiffs amounted to such a breach of the term as to constitute a repudiation of the contract, and whether or not the first defendant accepted that repudiation. Ultimately what is in issue is whether or not the first defendant can claim in these proceedings damages for a loss of her bargain, or, whether, in the circumstances which have occurred, she is entitled only to a declaration that the contract exists and an order to ensure that the contract is carried out, if that on the evidence be necessary.
2 There is no doubt that this application for amendment comes late in the day. It comes after a judgment delivered by me as to the parties' rights, which was delivered after a trial of the proceedings before me: Woods v Woods [1999] NSWSC 275. During that trial the question…

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 Woods v Woods

Details

AGLC: Woods v Woods [2000] NSWSC 179
Case: [2000] NSWSC 179
Decision Date: 24 February 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Woods v Woods is a case in the Supreme Court concerning a dispute between parties named Woods. The primary issue is whether the respondent should be permitted to amend a cross-claim after the hearing of substantive issues but before the determination of relief. The court was required to consider the criteria for granting such an amendment, including whether any delay caused prejudice to the opposing party and whether the amendment was necessary to rectify the consequences of a procedural error.

The court analysed the relevant rules and case law, focusing on the balance between the right to a fair hearing and the need for procedural flexibility. It concluded that while amendments are generally discouraged after substantive issues have been heard, they may be allowed if the delay did not cause prejudice and the amendment aimed to rectify procedural errors. The court found that the respondent's delay did not prejudice the applicant and that the amendment was necessary to correct a procedural oversight. Consequently, the court granted the application to amend the cross-claim.

The final orders included permission for the respondent to amend the cross-claim and an order for costs to rectify the consequences of the procedural error, ensuring that the applicant was not disadvantaged by the delay. The court's decision balanced the principles of procedural fairness with the need to achieve just outcomes in individual cases.

Orders