CTHFCA

Dudzinski v Harris

[2002] FCA 800

Federal Court of Australia|2002-05-10|Before: Dowsett J

View original source

At a glance

AI case summary

Result

defendant. Motion for extension of time dismissed; applicants ordered to pay respondents' costs of the hearing

Key principles

Where applicants fail to comply with a court order requiring amendment of pleadings by a specified date due to self-imposed pressures of other litigation, and where the court has...
A court may dismiss a motion for extension of time to amend pleadings where the matter is listed for imminent trial and there is no utility in fixing a further time for making...
Where applicants seek an extension of time rather than proceeding with an amendment application as directed, and respondents incur costs in attending a hearing on that basis,...

Issues before the court

Whether the court should grant an extension of time to amend the statement of claim
Whether the applicants should pay the respondents' costs of the hearing

Cited legislation

No linked legislation citations have been extracted yet.

Plain English Summary

A couple representing themselves in court failed to meet a deadline to amend their court documents. Instead of asking to change their documents, they asked for more time, saying they were busy with other cases. The judge refused to give them more time because they had already missed the deadline and the judge didn't think they would meet a new deadline either. The trial was coming up soon in September. The judge told them they could still ask to change their documents later, but the longer they waited, the less likely it would be approved. The couple also had to pay the other side's legal costs for the wasted hearing.

AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.

Judgment (5 paragraphs)

[1]

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On 5 April, I ordered that the applicants make any application to amend the statement of claim on or before 3 May 2002, and that any such application be heard today. I should say that Mr Dudzinski appears for both himself and his wife, who are both applicants. She has been in Court throughout the hearing today. The applicants have not yet made an application to amend their statement of claim. They have rather asked for an extension of time in which to do so. The matter has been listed for trial in September. In all of the circumstances, it seems to me that there is no point in fixing a time for making such an application. Mr Dudzinski says that the applicants have failed to comply with the last order because of the pressure of other litigation. Whether or not that is so, I do not propose to make another order, given the likelihood that it will again be ignored. 2 I have made it clear to Mr Dudzinski that if the applicants wish to amend their pleading, they must make an application promptly, and that the longer they leave it, the less likely it is to be successful. In those circumstances, I can see no point in making any order with respect to the application for extension of time. It is better that the applicants be left to make their application when they are ready to do so, although they must bear the consequences of any delay in that regard. The motion for extension of time is therefore dismissed. 3 Mr Dudzinski has, in the course of argument, indicated to me that he has a partial statement of claim ready for consideration, but I have declined to deal with anything other than an application to amend the statement of claim so as to produce the document which the applicants presently intend to be the statement of claim at trial. I can see no point in considering a partial amendment at this stage. 4 As to the question of the costs of today, the hearing date was fixed upon the basis that there would be an application for an amendment. Mr Dudzinski took out a motion returnable today, seeking an extension of time. In those circumstances, it seems that the applicants should pay the costs of today, to the extent that they have been thrown away, as a result of their failure to make an application for an amendment. I will therefore order that the applicants pay the respondents' costs of today. I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett.