NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Lake v Crawford [2010] NSWSC 232
HEARING DATE(S) : 16 December 2009 and 19 March 2010
JUDGMENT DATE : 31 March 2010
JUDGMENT OF : Harrison J
1. Grant leave to the plaintiff to amend the statement of claim in the form of the document described as the amended statement of claim, which for identification I have initialled, dated 30 March 2010 and placed with the papers. DECISION : 2. Order the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs thrown away or occasioned by reason of the amendment. 3. Dismiss the defendant's motion for security for costs with no order as to costs.
CATCHWORDS : PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - pleadings – application to amend statement of claim – where defendant received $3.9M in payments made by plaintiff's wife – where capacity and authority to do so in issue – whether defendant unjustly enriched by payments - whether reasonable cause of action disclosed – whether amendment futile – amendment allowed – COSTS – security for costs – where plaintiff sues by tutors residing outside the jurisdiction – no indication that recovery of costs will be compromised - application refused.
LEGISLATION CITED : Civil Procedure Act 2005 Powers of Attorney Act 2003
CATEGORY : Principal judgment
Adams v Buckland (1705) 2 Vern 514 [23 ER 929] Barnes v Addy (1873-74) LR 9 Ch App 244 City of Canada Bay Council v F & D Bonaccorso Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 351; (2007) 156 LGERA 294 Commissioner of State Revenue (Victoria) v Royal Insurance Australia Ltd [1994] HCA 61; (1994) 182 CLR 51 Didisheim v London & Westminster Bank [1900] 2 Ch 15 Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd [2007] HCA 22; (2007) 230 CLR 89 Ford Motor Co Ltd v Amalgamated Union of Engineering and Foundry Workers [1969] 2 QB 303 CASES CITED : Gibbons v Wright [1954] HCA 17; (1954) 91 CLR 423 Guthrie v Armstrong (1822) 5 B & Ald 628 [106 ER 1320] Holt (1983) 12 A Crim R 1 In re W (Enduring Power of Attorney) [2000] Ch 343 and [2001] Ch 609 McGuirk v The University of New South Wales [2009] NSWSC 1424 McLaughlin v Daily Telegraph Newspaper Co Ltd (No 2) [1904] HCA 51; (1904) 1 CLR 243 Quek v Beggs (1990) 5 BPR 11,761 The Margaret Mitchell (Stiles, Master) (1858) Sw 382 [166 ER 1174]
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