Weston Ward and Lascelles v Primosso Holdings Limited CA152/04

The case of Weston Ward and Lascelles v Primosso Holdings Limited CA152/04 was heard in the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The appellants, Weston Ward and Lascelles, sought an extension of time to file a further amended statement of claim against the respondents, Primosso Holdings Limited, Capital Acceptance Limited, and others. The dispute arose from a previous judgment in which the Court of Appeal had allowed an appeal and struck out an amended statement of claim, but had given the respondents liberty to re-plead the claim in deceit. The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the respondents should be granted an extension of time to file a further amended statement of claim, and if so, whether the respondents should be required to pay the appellants' costs.

The Court considered that while the respondents had been on notice since 2003 of the difficulties with the claim in negligence, their arguments could only sensibly be advanced in the context of a claim in deceit, which they had finally accepted. Although the appellants argued that granting the extension would be an indulgence too many, the Court was prepared to extend time as requested given that there was no prejudice to the appellants if leave was granted, but there was the possibility of prejudice to the respondents if leave was not granted. Additionally, the Court found that the respondents were guilty of delay and therefore ordered the respondents to pay costs of $1,500 and usual disbursements.

In summary, the Court of Appeal granted the respondents' application for an extension of time to file a further amended statement of claim, but ordered the respondents to pay the appellants' costs due to the delay. The Court found that while the respondents had been on notice of the difficulties with the claim in negligence, their arguments could only sensibly be advanced in the context of a claim in deceit, and that there was no prejudice to the appellants if leave was granted. The Court further found that the respondents were guilty of delay and therefore ordered them to pay the appellants' costs.