NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Clutha v Millar (No.2) [2002] NSWSC 523 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 4834/00 HEARING DATE(S) : 4 June 2002 JUDGMENT DATE : 12 June 2002
Clutha Ltd (in liq) (P) Frederick William Millar (D1) John McClelland Armstrong (D2) Denis John Frew (D3) John Knox Doherty (D4) PARTIES : Charles Ronald Longworth (D5) Donald George Thomas (D6) Ernest Neil Scott (D7) Hiroshi Yoshikawa (D8) Hirosuke Yamamoto (D9) Nichimen Corporation (D10) Nichimen Australia Ltd (D11) JUDGMENT OF : Austin J
Mr J C Kelly SC with G Seib (P) COUNSEL : Mr G Lucarelli (D1 to D7) Mr J Marshall (D10 & D11) Piper Alderman (P) SOLICITORS : Minter Ellison (D1 to D7) Clayton Utz (D10 & D11) CATCHWORDS : PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - application to amend statement of claim - whether Court has jurisdiction to grant leave to amend under Supreme Court Rules where originating process was statute-barred LEGISLATION CITED : Limitations Act 1969 (NSW) s 63 Supreme Court Rules Pt 20 Baldry v Jackson [1976] 2 NSWLR 415 Chapple v Laming [1981] 2 NSWLR 765 Clutha Ltd (in liq) v Millar [2002] NSWSC 362 CASES CITED : Fernance v Nominal Defendant (1989) 17 NSWLR 710 Lloyd Steel (Aust) Pty Ltd v Jade Shipping SA (1985) 1 NSWLR 212 McGee v Yeomans [1977) 1 NSWLR 273 Proctor v Jetway Aviation Pty Ltd [1984] 1 NSWLR 166 Weldon v Neal (887) 19 QBD 394 DECISION : Proceeding to be dismissed against first to seventh defendants
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