(1)Motion filed by the plaintiff on 6 March 2012 is dismissed.
(2)Motion filed by the first and second defendants on 30 August 2011 is dismissed.
(3)Motion filed by the third defendant on 2 March 2012 is dismissed.
(4)Motion filed by the fourth and fifth defendants on 6 March 2012 is dismissed.
(5)Order the plaintiff, if she now seeks to proceed on the Statement of Claim filed on 11 November 2010, then on or before 4pm Friday 1 June 2013, the plaintiff will need to notify the defendants in writing of her intention so to do
(6)Order that defendants have leave to, if so advised, file any further Notices of Motion seeking the hearing of a separate question under r 28.2 of the UCPR with respect to the issues raised by the pleaded advocates immunity defences, providing that such motions together with all affidavits in support are filed on or before 4pm 28 June 2013.
(7)Grant leave for the motions to be returnable before me at 9.30am on Friday 5 July 2013.
(8)Proceedings stood over to 9.30am on Friday 5 July 2013 for directions.
(9)Liberty to apply on three days notice.
(10)Costs reserved.
Catchwords:
PROCEDURE - Amendment of pleading - need for statement of claim to be clear, concise and unambiguous - whether leave should be granted to file complex pleading - no point of general principle
PROCEDURE - Summary dismissal - whether inability to formulate a proper pleading and delay in doing so sufficient reason for summary dismissal - held not - no point of general principle
Margo Young (P) Brian Hones (D1) Jason Hones (D2) Ian Hemmings (D3) Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd (D4) Stephen Perrens (D5)
Representation:
Counsel: Mr Newell (P) M Staunton (D1 & D2) D…
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 Young v Hones
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Young v Hones [2013] NSWSC 580
Case
[2013] NSWSC 580
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Young v Hones involved a dispute where the plaintiff sought to amend their statement of claim to include complex allegations against the defendant. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The plaintiff's initial statement of claim was deemed insufficiently clear, concise, and unambiguous, leading to an application for leave to amend. The defendant opposed the application, arguing that the proposed amendment was too complex and would not assist in resolving the matter fairly and expeditiously.
The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend their pleading and if the inability to formulate a proper pleading and the delay in doing so were sufficient grounds for summary dismissal. The legal issues centred around the principles of procedural fairness and the requirement for pleadings to be clear and unambiguous. The court considered whether the amendment would introduce new legal issues or if it merely clarified existing ones.
The court held that there was no point of general principle in the case that warranted detailed consideration of the procedural issues raised. It found that while the initial statement of claim was inadequate, the inability to formulate a proper pleading and the delay in doing so did not constitute sufficient grounds for summary dismissal. The court emphasised that the primary focus should be on ensuring that the pleadings are clear, concise, and unambiguous to facilitate a fair and expeditious resolution of the matter. The application for leave to amend the statement of claim was granted, but the court did not dismiss the proceedings.