University of Western Australia v Gray (No 18) [2007] FCA 1038

University of Western Australia v Gray (No 18) [2007] FCA 1038

The proposed additional particulars concerning Mr Gorn were refused because the application was made after the evidence had closed in a lengthy trial, much of the proposed case rested on documentary material or inferences from evidence already available, and allowing the amendment would likely create unfair prejudice that was difficult to quantify, including possible recall of Mr Gorn and further evidence about his state of mind.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure Application to Amend Particulars / After Evidence Closed in a 45 Day Trial and Before Closing Submissions
Outcome
Application to amend particulars refused; applicant ordered to pay the second respondent's costs of the application.
Legal Topics
['pleadings' 'particulars' 'amendment of Particulars' 'corporate State of Mind' 'unfair Prejudice']
['practice and Procedure' 'civil Procedure'] ['pleadings' 'particulars' 'amendment of Particulars' 'corporate State of Mind' 'unfair Prejudice']

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

Practice and Procedure Application to Amend Particulars / After Evidence Closed in a 45 Day Trial and Before Closing Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the University should be permitted to amend its particulars to rely on the state of mind of Mr Dane Gorn as part of the basis for attributing a pleaded state of mind to Sirtex.' 'Whether the proposed amendment was too late and would cause unfair prejudice to Sirtex.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed additional particulars concerning Mr Gorn were refused because the application was made after the evidence had closed in a lengthy trial, much of the proposed case rested on documentary material or inferences from evidence already available, and allowing the amendment would likely create unfair prejudice that was difficult to quantify, including possible recall of Mr Gorn and further evidence about his state of mind.

Court Disposition

Application to amend particulars refused; applicant ordered to pay the second respondent's costs of the application.

Orders

  • ['The application to amend the particulars by including particulars relating to Mr Gorn, is refused.' "The applicant will pay the second respondent's costs of the application."]