NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Court of Appeal
Maile v Rafiq [2005] NSWCA 410 CITATION: This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
HEARING DATE(S): 28 October 2005
JUDGMENT DATE: 24 November 2005
JUDGMENT OF: Tobias JA at 1; Brownie AJA at 111
DECISION: (a) Grant leave to appeal upon condition that the claimant file a Notice of Appeal within 7 days of the date of these orders; (b) Appeal allowed; (c) Set aside the order made by Judge Sidis on 23 September 2004 dismissing the claimant's Notice of Motion filed on 5 August 2004; (d) Grant leave to the claimant to file amended Notice of Grounds of Defence in the form of the draft amended notice dated 19 August 2004; (e) The opponent to pay the claimant's costs of the summons for leave to appeal and of the appeal but to have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951, if otherwise qualified
CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE – Leave to amend defence – Motor accident – Where defendant's compulsory third party insurer admitted breach of duty – Where breach of duty admitted in defence – Where defendant unable to be interviewed until after defence filed – Leave sought to amend so as to deny liability and plead contributory negligence – Whether interests of justice required withdrawal of admission – Prejudice to plaintiff – Actual or presumptive – Whether adequate explanation for making of admission – Whether admission contrary to actual facts – Motor Accident's Compensation Act 1999 s 81
Motor Accidents Act 1988 LEGISLATION CITED: Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 Suitors' Fund Act 1951
Barker v Gifford [2005] ACTSC 55 Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541 Celestino v Celestino (Federal Court of Australia, 16 August 1990, unreported) Clough and Rogers v Frog (1974) 48 ALJR 481 Cropper v Smith (1884) 26 ChD 700 CASES CITED: Drabsch v Switzerland General Insurance Co Ltd (16 October 1996, unreported) Hannaford v Cochrane (14 September 1995, unreported) Ness v Graffen (2003) 60 NSWLR 549 Reinicke v Neilson [2004] ACTSC 5 Wyer v Hunt [2005] ACTSC 15
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