NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Daynes v I-MED Central Queensland Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 1313 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 21 October 2024 Decision date: 21 October 2024 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Cavanagh J Decision: See [49] Catchwords: JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – Amending, varying and setting aside – amendments under the slip rule – whether proposed amendments are within the ambit of the slip rule COSTS – variation of costs order – whether no costs should be awarded to the plaintiff having regard to UCPR r 42.34 – whether it was appropriate for the plaintiff to commence and continue proceedings in the Supreme Court – application for indemnity costs by unsuccessful defendant on the basis of principles in Calderbank v Calderbank Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) rr 36.17, 42.15, 42.34 Cases Cited: Calderbank v Calderbank [1976] Fam 93 Mainteck Services Pty Limited v Stein Heurtey SA and Stein Heurtey Australia Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 1563 MBP (SA) Pty Ltd v Gogic (1991) 171 CLR 657 Milich v The Council of the City of Canterbury (No. 3) [2012] NSWSC 1280 State of New South Wales v Quirk [2012] NSWCA 216 Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Anthony Kevin Daynes (Plaintiff) I-MED Central Queensland Pty Ltd (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: A Moses SC and J Bennett (Plaintiff) L Saunders (Defendant)
Solicitors: Gillis Delaney Lawyers (Plaintiff) McCullough Robertson (Defendant) File Number(s): 2022/00213195 Publication restriction: Nil
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate