Lee v Micha International Pty Limited [2009] NSWDC 91

New South Wales District Court

CITATION: Lee v Micha International Pty Limited [2009] NSWDC 91

HEARING DATE(S): 2 April 2009 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 2 April 2009

JURISDICTION: Civil

JUDGMENT OF: Goldring DCJ

DECISION: Plaintiff's application for leave to amend statement of claim allowed in part and refused in part.

CATCHWORDS: COURTS - District Court - Equitable jurisdiction - what constitutes

LEGISLATION CITED: District Court Act 1973 Civil Procedure Act 2005

CASES CITED: Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Hadfield (2001) 53 NSWLR 614

TEXTS CITED: R P Meagher, W M C Gummow & J R F Lehane, Equity Doctrines and Remedies, 3rd ed (1992) Sydney, Butterworths E I Sykes & S Walker, The Law of Securities, 5th ed (1993) Sydney, Law Book Co Ltd

PARTIES: Jong Seol Lee (Plaintiff) Micha International Pty Limited (Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): 4185 of 2008

COUNSEL: M Sneddon (Plaintiff/Applicant) J R Young (Defendant/Respondent)

SOLICITORS: Watson & Watson Solicitors (Plaintiff/Applicant) Sean Kim Bilias & Associates (Defendant/Respondent)

JUDGMENT

Application to amend statement of claim

1 HIS HONOUR: This is an application by the plaintiff for leave to amend the statement of claim. Originally the statement of claim says this in para 2: "On or 16 December 2005 the Plaintiff (as vendor) entered into a written Agreement with the Defendant (as purchaser) for the sale/purchase of a business known as 'Windsor Convenience Store'. PARTICULARS Contract for the Sale of Business 2000 Edition, dated 16 December 2006."

2 That document is in evidence before me on the application. Paragraph 4: "The terms of the contract inter alia required the Plaintiff to pay to the Defendant the following amounts: (i) $300,000 being the price for sale of the business; and (ii) $ 60,000 being the price for the sale of stock. Total $360,000."