Skybridge Financial Pty Ltd atf the MTP Unit Trust v Buckpitt [2024] NSWSC 1050

Skybridge Financial Pty Ltd atf the MTP Unit Trust v Buckpitt [2024] NSWSC 1050

Although the plaintiffs had known of the matters underlying the proposed amendments for months and gave no evidence explaining the delay, it would not be just to shut them out from pursuing the proposed restraint clause and work-in-progress claims. Leave to amend was therefore granted, but only on conditions addressing prejudice: the plaintiffs could not adduce further evidence without leave of the Court, costs thrown away and motion costs were to be paid, and discovery was to be addressed by a Redfern Schedule process.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Equity Commercial List; Civil Procedure Pleadings Amendment / Notice of Motion for Leave to Amend Summons and List Statement and for Discovery After Service of Evidence
Outcome
Plaintiffs granted leave to amend their summons and list statement subject to conditions; discovery issues were to be addressed through a Redfern Schedule.
Legal Topics
['amendment of Pleadings' 'list Statement' 'restraint Clause' 'discovery' 'costs Thrown Away']
['civil Procedure' 'commercial Law' 'contract'] ['amendment of Pleadings' 'list Statement' 'restraint Clause' 'discovery' 'costs Thrown Away']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Equity Commercial List; Civil Procedure Pleadings Amendment / Notice of Motion for Leave to Amend Summons and List Statement and for Discovery After Service of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiffs should be granted leave to amend their summons and list statement to add allegations of breach of restraint clauses and further un-invoiced work in progress claims after evidence had been served.' 'Whether conditions should be imposed on any leave to amend, including restrictions on further evidence and costs orders.' "How the plaintiffs' request for discovery should be dealt with."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the plaintiffs had known of the matters underlying the proposed amendments for months and gave no evidence explaining the delay, it would not be just to shut them out from pursuing the proposed restraint clause and work-in-progress claims. Leave to amend was therefore granted, but only on conditions addressing prejudice: the plaintiffs could not adduce further evidence without leave of the Court, costs thrown away and motion costs were to be paid, and discovery was to be addressed by a Redfern Schedule process.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs granted leave to amend their summons and list statement subject to conditions; discovery issues were to be addressed through a Redfern Schedule.

Orders

  • ['Plaintiff granted leave to amend its summons and list statement.' 'Plaintiff may not adduce any further evidence without leave of the Court, such leave not to be given unless exceptional circumstances are shown.' "Plaintiff to pay defendants' costs thrown away by the amendment." "Plaintiff to pay defendants' costs...