Legal Research
Cases
Young v Hones (No 2)

Young v Hones (No 2)

Case [2014] NSWCA 338 1 October 2014

Type to search within this case.

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Young v Hones (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 338
Hearing dates: 2 May 2014
Decision date: 01 October 2014
Before: Bathurst CJ; Ward JA; Emmett JA
Decision:
Orders made on 2 May 2014:
1.Application for leave to appeal from refusal to adjourn hearing on 23 August 2013 refused.
2.Application for leave to appeal from refusal to allow further amended statement of claim to be filed refused.
3.Leave given for Notice of Contention to be filed in Court on behalf of 4th and 5th respondents.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords: PROCEDURE - appeal - application for leave to appeal against interlocutory decision - whether primary judge erred in refusing application to further amend statement of claim - whether primary judge erred in refusing oral application for adjournment during reply submissions to put on evidence explaining lateness of application to further amend the statement of claim
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Encroachment of Buildings Act 1992 (NSW)
Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW)
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27; (2009) 239 CLR 175
Be Financial Pty Ltd as Trustee for Be Financial Operations Trust v Das [2012] NSWCA 164
Banque Commerciale SA (En Liquidation) v Akhil Holdings Ltd [1990] HCA 11; (1990) 169 CLR 279
Belmont Finance Corporation Ltd v Williams Furniture Ltd [1979] Ch 250
Dare v Pulham [1982] HCA 70; (1982) 148 CLR 658
Frank Jasper Pty Ltd v Deloitte Touche Tomatsu (A Firm) [2006] WASC 24
Gerlach v Clifton Bricks Pty Ltd [2002] HCA 22; (2002) 209 CLR 478
Hans Pet Constructions Pty Ltd v Cassar [2009] NSWCA 230
House v R [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499
Jackamarra v Krakouer [1998] HCA 27; (1998) 195 CLR 516
Jaycar Pty Ltd v Lombardo [2011] NSWCA 284
John Holland Pty Ltd v Miami Gold (WA) Pty Ltd [2006] WASC 141
Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; (1959) 101 CLR 298
Micallef v ICI Australia Operations Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 274
Warragamba Winery Pty Ltd v State of NSW [2010] NSWCA 174
Young v Hones [2014] NSWCA 337
Young v Hones [2013] NSWSC 580
Category: Principal judgment
Parties:
Margo Young (Applicant/Appellant)
Brian Keith Hones (First Respondent)
Jason Hones (Second Respondent)
Ian Hemmings (Third Respondent)
Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd (Fourth Respondent)
Stephen John Perrens (Fifth Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
RD Newell (Applicant/Appellant)
JC Kelly SC with MJ Darke (First and Second Respondents)
TD Miller SC with Ms PA Horvath…

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 (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Young v Hones (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 338
Case: [2014] NSWCA 338
Decision Date: 01 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Young v Hones (No 2)*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered an application for leave to appeal against an interlocutory decision of the primary judge. The dispute concerned the primary judge's refusal to grant an adjournment during reply submissions to allow the plaintiffs to adduce evidence explaining the lateness of their application to further amend their statement of claim, and the primary judge's refusal to permit that further amendment.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine two principal legal issues. Firstly, whether the primary judge erred in refusing the oral application for an adjournment during reply submissions. Secondly, whether the primary judge erred in refusing the application to further amend the statement of claim.

The Court of Appeal refused both applications for leave to appeal. In relation to the refusal to adjourn, the Court found no error on the part of the primary judge. Regarding the refusal to allow the further amendment of the statement of claim, the Court also found no error, implicitly applying principles that govern the amendment of pleadings, particularly concerning the stage of proceedings and potential prejudice to the opposing party. Leave was granted for the fourth and fifth respondents to file a Notice of Contention.

Orders

Orders of the court

Orders made on 2 May 2014:

1.Application for leave to appeal from refusal to adjourn hearing on 23 August 2013 refused.

2.Application for leave to appeal from refusal to allow further amended statement of claim to be filed refused.

3.Leave given for Notice of Contention to be filed in Court on behalf of 4th and 5th respondents.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Young v Hones (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 338

Most Recent Citation

Young v King (No 6) [2015] NSWLEC 111

Cases citing this decision · 29 of 29 shown

Option Holdings Pty Ltd v Guo
[2025] NSWCA 70 Para 15

…n Micallef v ICI Australia Operations Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 274 at [45] and [78]-[83], which was restated in identical terms in Young v Hones (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 338 at [15]. Those were the two decisions to which senior counsel referred, although the same statements may be found in a number of other decisions of thi…
Option Holdings Pty Ltd v Meng Yu
[2025] NSWCA 18 Para 23

…ate of New South Wales [2015] NSWCA 27 at [19]. Further, leave to appeal will not be granted where the appeal is doomed to fail: Young v Hones (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 338 at [63]. See also Cheng v Motor Yacht Sales Australia Pty Ltd t/as The Boutique Boat Company (2022) 108 NSWLR 342; [2022] NSWCA 118 at [14]-[21] (Bel…
Wang v State of New South Wales
[2023] NSWCA 124 Para 7

…ate has noted, leave to appeal will not be granted in respect of interlocutory decisions where the appeal is doomed to fail (see Young v Hones (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 338 at [63] per Bathurst CJ, Ward JA (as her Honour then was) and Emmett JA; Pi v Pierce and Attorney General for NSW [2015] NSWCA 118 at [11] per Ward J…
Wang v Meng
[2022] NSWCA 215 Para 22

…o a serious injustice which is more than merely arguable ( The Age Company Ltd & Ors v Liu (2013) 82 NSWLR 268; [2013] NSWCA 26; Young v Hones (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 338 at [14]). Moreover, the judge’s decision was discretionary and the grounds for appellate review are as stated in House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 a…
Muriniti v Lawcover Insurance Pty Ltd
[2022] NSWCA 159 Para 8

…Young. This litigation (which may be described as the Young v Hones litigation ) included an appeal to the Court of Appeal (see Young v Hones (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 338) and two unsuccessful special leave applications to the High Court.…
Muriniti v Kalil
[2022] NSWCA 109 Para 3

…ecessary liability for her own costs and the costs of those she unreasonably pursued”; 34. Primary judgment at [284]. 35. [2014] NSWCA 338 at [119]. 36. [2012] NSWLEC 42. 37. [2012] NSWLEC 236. 38. [2015] NSWLEC 111. 39. [2015] NSWLEC 187. 40. [2016] NSWLEC 4. 41. [2017] NSWLEC 34. 42. [2016] NSWCA 282. 43. [2017]…
Muriniti v Lawcover Insurance Pty Ltd
[2022] NSWSC 90 Para 61

…ated proceedings were commenced in this Court (the Young v Hones litigation) that included an appeal to the Court of Appeal (see Young v Hones (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 338) (Young v Hones (No 2) ) brought by Mrs Young against the former lawyers and engineers who had acted for her in the Land and Environment Court procee…
Kalil v Eppinga
[2020] NSWDC 407

…fax Media Publications [2015] FCA 652 Lemoto v Able Technical Pty Ltd & 2 Ors [2005] NSWCA 153 King v Muriniti [2018] NSWCA 98 Young v Hones (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 338 Young v King (No 3) [2012] NSWLEC 42 Young v King (No 4) [2012] NSWLEC 236 Young v King (No 6) [2015] NSWLEC 111 Young v King (No 8) [2015] NSWLEC 187…
Australian Health & Nutrition Association Ltd v Hive Marketing Group Pty Ltd
[2019] NSWCA 61 Para 12

…in Micallef v ICI Australia Operations Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 274 at [45] and [78]-[83], which was restated in identical terms in Young v Hones (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 338 at [15]. Those were the two decisions to which senior counsel referred, although the same statements may be found in a number of other decisions of t…
A [a pseudonym] v E Co [a pseudonym]
[2018] NSWCA 188

…c v Dyason (No 2) (1993) 176 CLR 300; [1993] HCA 6 Patsalis v State of New South Wales (2012) 81 NSWLR 742; [2012] NSWCA 307 Young v Hones (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 338 Category: Principal judgment Parties: “A” [a pseudonym] (First Applicant) “B” [a pseudonym] (Second Applicant) “E Co” [a pseudonym] (First Respondent) “E…
Lawcover Insurance Pty Ltd v Leonardo Carlo Muriniti & Robert Duane Newell
[2017] NSWSC 1557 Para 27

…peal (Bathurst CJ, Ward and Emmett JJA) refused leave to appeal from the judgment of Garling J in the Young v Hones proceedings; Young v Hones (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 338. In doing so the Court observed at [119] that it was a serious matter to allege fraud and that it was incumbent on Ms Young’s advisors (Mr Newell and…
Medical Council of New South Wales v Lee
[2017] NSWCA 282 Para 76

…ation is intended to protect the health and safety of the public. [18] 18. As to the criteria for a grant of leave to appeal see Young v Hones (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 338 at [14] per curiam and the cases cited there.…
Young v Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd
[2017] FCA 470

…h (1889) 14 App Cas 665 Young v Hones [2014] NSWCA 337 Young v Hones [2015] HCASL 73 Young v Hones [2017] HCASL 27 Young v Hones (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 338 Young v Hones (No 3) [2014] NSWSC 499 Young v Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 1176 Young v King [2016] NSWCA 282 Young v King [2017] HCASL 28 Young v King (No 2)…
Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Cowper
[2016] NSWCA 320 Para 10

…f going beyond what is merely arguable. All those concessions, which accord with familiar authorities collected, for example, in Young v Hones (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 338 at [13]-[15], were properly made. It is to be expected that the circumstances in which an application of this nature succeeds will be rare.…
Young v Hones (No.5)
[2016] NSWSC 822 Para 10

…addition, relevant background is to be found in the judgments of the Court of Appeal in Young v Hones [2014] NSWCA 337 (“CA1”) and Young v Hones [2014] NSWCA 338 (“CA2”).…
Young v King (No 9)
[2016] NSWLEC 4 Para 1

…CA had said in dismissing Young’s appeal against Garling J’s dismissal of her action against Hones, Hemmings and Perrens – Young v Hones (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 338):…
High Court Bulletin
[2015] HCAB 7

…Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal) [2014] NSWCA 338…
Penson v Titan National Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2015] NSWCA 197 Para 18

…cise discretion to grant leave to appeal was the prospects of success of the appeal since it has been recognised (for example in Young v Hones (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 338 at [63] and Collier v Lancer (No 2) [2013] NSWCA 186) that leave to appeal should be refused where an appeal is doomed to fail. Therefore, while the…
Young v King (No 6)
[2015] NSWLEC 111 Para 86

…d upon the use of “emotive language in which correspondence has issued from her solicitors and submissions have been put on her behalf”. (See [2014] NSWCA 338, at [95], [118], and [119]).…
Tanious v Australian Medical Council Ltd
[2015] NSWCA 189 Para 21

…Leave to appeal will not be granted in respect of interlocutory decisions where the appeal is doomed to fail ( Young v Hones (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 338 at [63]). Where the decision in question involves an exercise of discretion (such as the decision summarily to dismiss proceedings pursuant to UCPR 13.4 or the decisio…
Penson v Titan National Pty Ltd
[2015] NSWCA 165 Para 30

…2013] NSWCA 186). Leave to appeal will not be granted in respect of interlocutory decisions where the appeal is doomed to fail ( Young v Hones (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 338 at [63]).…
Pi v Pierce and Attorney General for NSW
[2015] NSWCA 118 Para 11

…2013] NSWCA 186). Leave to appeal will not be granted in respect of interlocutory decisions where the appeal is doomed to fail ( Young v Hones (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 338 at [63]).…
Kwon v Cha; Kwon v O'Neill
[2015] NSWCA 111 Para 29

…Leave to appeal will not be granted in respect of interlocutory decisions where the appeal is doomed to fail ( Young v Hones (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 338 at [63]).…
Benton v QBE Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd
[2015] NSWCA 101 Para 2

…native effect, leave to appeal will not be granted in respect of interlocutory decisions where the appeal is bound to fail ( Young v Hones (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 338 at [63]).…
Clarke v State of New South Wales
[2015] NSWCA 27 Para 21

…Leave to appeal will not be granted in respect of interlocutory decisions where the appeal is doomed to fail: Young v Hones (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 338 at [63].…
Madden v Madden
[2014] NSWCA 427 Para 1

…s or arrived at a result so unreasonable or unjust as to suggest that one of the foregoing categories of error had occurred (see Young v Hones (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 338 at [14]-[15]). Hones (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 338).…
Riva NSW Pty Ltd v Key Nominees Pty Ltd
[2014] NSWCA 381 Para 1

…The principles governing challenges to interlocutory decisions of this kind were recently stated by the Court in Young v Hones (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 338:…
Siewert v Aquatic Air Pty Ltd
[2014] NSWCA 384 Para 1

…neral public importance or an injustice that is reasonably clear, in the sense of going beyond what is merely arguable (see, eg, Young v Hones (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 338 at [14]-[15]). The Siewerts have not shown an error of legal principle or a material error of fact on the part of Brereton J. They have not establish…
Young v Hones
[2014] NSWCA 337 Para 1

…bject of the present approval. The circumstances in which that leave was granted were canvassed in the reasons published today ( Young v Hones (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 338) in relation to the dismissal by this Court on 2 May 2014 of Ms Young's application for leave to appeal from the primary judge's subsequent refusal t…

View all 29 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 17 of 17 shown

Young v Hones
[2014] NSWCA 337 Para 1

…The background to the Common Law Division proceedings is set out in Ward JA's judgment on the summary dismissal appeal ( Young v Hones [2014] NSWCA 337). Suffice it for present purposes to note that Ms Young is a pensioner who has been in dispute for over a decade as to certain building works carried out by her nei…
Young v Hones (No 2)
[2013] NSWSC 1429 Para 1

…he parties to the proceedings: Young v Hones [2013] NSWSC 580 (at [6]). At that stage, as his Honour noted in his later reasons: Young v Hones (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 1429 at [55], there had been at least eight iterations of the statement of claim in proceedings that had commenced in February 2010. (His Honour's May 201…
Young v Hones
[2013] NSWSC 580 Para 1

…s Honour described as Ms Young's attempts to formulate a proper pleading setting out her claims against the parties to the proceedings: Young v Hones [2013] NSWSC 580 (at [6]). At that stage, as his Honour noted in his later reasons: Young v Hones (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 1429 at [55], there had been at least eight iter…
Be Financial Pty Ltd as Trustee for Be Financial Operations Trust v Das
[2012] NSWCA 164 Para 1

…t is not sufficient merely to show that the primary judge was arguably wrong: Be Financial Pty Ltd as Trustee for Be Financial Operations Trust v Das [2012] NSWCA 164 at [32]. Nor is it to the point that the appellate Court might have arrived at a different result had it exercised the relevant discretion at first i…
Jaycar Pty Ltd v Lombardo
[2011] NSWCA 284 Para 1

…f general public importance or an injustice which is reasonably clear in the sense of going beyond what is merely arguable: Jaycar Pty Ltd v Lombardo [2011] NSWCA 284 at [46].…
Warragamba Winery Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales
[2010] NSWCA 174 Para 1

…nterlocutory decisions on matters of practice and procedure. Challenging such decisions is a difficult task: Warragamba Winery Pty Ltd v State of NSW [2010] NSWCA 174 at [6]; Micallef v ICI Australia Operations Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 274 at [45]. Ordinarily, it is appropriate to grant leave to appeal from such decisi…
Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University
[2009] HCA 27 Para 1

…es before the Court. That submission cannot be accepted in light of what was said in Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27; (2009) 239 CLR 175 as to the need for such an explanation.…
Hans Pet Constructions Pty Ltd v Cassar
[2009] NSWCA 230 Para 1

…the efficient disposal of Court business and the efficient use of judicial resources (s 57). As made clear in Hans Pet Constructions Pty Ltd v Cassar [2009] NSWCA 230, compliance with these requirements is mandatory. Allsop ACJ (as his Honour then was), with whom Campbell and Young JJA agreed, there said at [36] th…
John Holland Pty Ltd v Miami Gold (WA) Pty Ltd
[2006] WASC 141 Para 1

…Reliance is placed on what was said in John Holland Pty Ltd v Miami Gold (WA) Pty Ltd [2006] WASC 141 by Newnes M (as his Honour then was) at [45] to [48] to the effect that what is required is a statement of the case that is sufficiently clear to allow the party a fair opportunity to meet it: Dare v Pulham [1982]…
Frank Jasper Pty Ltd & Anor v Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (a firm) & Ors
[2006] WASC 24 Para 1

…party a fair opportunity to meet it: Dare v Pulham [1982] HCA 70; (1982) 148 CLR 658 at 664; Frank Jasper Pty Ltd v Deloitte Touche Tomatsu (A Firm) [2006] WASC 24.…
Gerlach v Clifton Bricks Pty Ltd
[2002] HCA 22 Para 1

…ion was subsumed in the challenge to the correctness of the ultimate summary dismissal judgment (on the reasoning in Gerlach v Clifton Bricks Pty Ltd [2002] HCA 22; (2002) 209 CLR 478), for the reasons which are canvassed in (ii) below that challenge would not have succeeded.…
Micallef v ICI Australia Operations Pty Ltd
[2001] NSWCA 274 Para 1

…ing such decisions is a difficult task: Warragamba Winery Pty Ltd v State of NSW [2010] NSWCA 174 at [6]; Micallef v ICI Australia Operations Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 274 at [45]. Ordinarily, it is appropriate to grant leave to appeal from such decisions only where there is an issue of principle involved or a question…
Jackamarra v Krakouer
[1998] HCA 27 Para 1

…It is well recognised that the stress of ongoing litigation is a prejudice to litigants. In Jackamarra v Krakouer [1998] HCA 27 at [29]; (1998) 195 CLR 516 at 526, the High Court, referring to prejudice arising from delay in an admittedly different context, said:…
Banque Commerciale SA, En Liquidation v Akhil Holdings Ltd
[1990] HCA 11 Para 1

…g alleged: Belmont Finance Corporation Ltd v Williams Furniture Ltd [1979] Ch 250 at 268; Banque Commerciale SA (En Liquidation) v Akhil Holdings Ltd [1990] HCA 11; (1990) 169 CLR 279 per Dawson J at 295 [13].…
Dare v Pulham
[1982] HCA 70 Para 1

…he effect that what is required is a statement of the case that is sufficiently clear to allow the party a fair opportunity to meet it: Dare v Pulham [1982] HCA 70; (1982) 148 CLR 658 at 664; Frank Jasper Pty Ltd v Deloitte Touche Tomatsu (A Firm) [2006] WASC 24.…
Jones v Dunkel
[1959] HCA 8

…] HCA 27; (1998) 195 CLR 516 Jaycar Pty Ltd v Lombardo [2011] NSWCA 284 John Holland Pty Ltd v Miami Gold (WA) Pty Ltd [2006] WASC 141 Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; (1959) 101 CLR 298 Micallef v ICI Australia Operations Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 274 Warragamba Winery Pty Ltd v State of NSW [2010] NSWCA 174 Young v Ho…
House v R
[1936] HCA 40 Para 1

…What must be shown is error in the House v R sense ( House v R [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499 at 505), namely that the primary judge: made an error of legal principle; made a material error of fact; took into account some irrelevant consideration; failed to take into account, or to give sufficient weight to, s…

Legislation cited in this decision · 5

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Encroachment of Buildings Act 1992 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Fair Trading Act 1987 (WA)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 1)

Medium Neutral Citation:	Young v Hones (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 338
Hearing dates:	2 May 2014
Decision date:	01 October 2014
Before:	Bathurst CJ; Ward JA; Emmett JA
Decision:	Orders made on 2 May 2014: 1.Application for leave to appeal from refusal to adjourn hearing on 23 August 2013 refused. 2.Application for leave to appeal from refusal to allow further amended statement of claim to be filed refused. 3.Leave given for Notice of Contention to be filed in Court on behalf of 4th and 5th respondents. [Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
Catchwords:	PROCEDURE - appeal - application for leave to appeal against interlocutory decision - whether primary judge erred in refusing application to further amend statement of claim - whether primary judge erred in refusing oral application for adjournment during reply submissions to put on evidence explaining lateness of application to further amend the statement of claim
Legislation Cited:	Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) Encroachment of Buildings Act 1992 (NSW) Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27; (2009) 239 CLR 175 Be Financial Pty Ltd as Trustee for Be Financial Operations Trust v Das [2012] NSWCA 164 Banque Commerciale SA (En Liquidation) v Akhil Holdings Ltd [1990] HCA 11; (1990) 169 CLR 279 Belmont Finance Corporation Ltd v Williams Furniture Ltd [1979] Ch 250 Dare v Pulham [1982] HCA 70; (1982) 148 CLR 658 Frank Jasper Pty Ltd v Deloitte Touche Tomatsu (A Firm) [2006] WASC 24 Gerlach v Clifton Bricks Pty Ltd [2002] HCA 22; (2002) 209 CLR 478 Hans Pet Constructions Pty Ltd v Cassar [2009] NSWCA 230 House v R [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499 Jackamarra v Krakouer [1998] HCA 27; (1998) 195 CLR 516 Jaycar Pty Ltd v Lombardo [2011] NSWCA 284 John Holland Pty Ltd v Miami Gold (WA) Pty Ltd [2006] WASC 141 Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; (1959) 101 CLR 298 Micallef v ICI Australia Operations Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 274 Warragamba Winery Pty Ltd v State of NSW [2010] NSWCA 174 Young v Hones [2014] NSWCA 337 Young v Hones [2013] NSWSC 580
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Margo Young (Applicant/Appellant) Brian Keith Hones (First Respondent) Jason Hones (Second Respondent) Ian Hemmings (Third Respondent) Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd (Fourth Respondent) Stephen John Perrens (Fifth Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: RD Newell (Applicant/Appellant) JC Kelly SC with MJ Darke (First and Second Respondents) TD Miller SC with Ms PA Horvath…