Chiu v Sheh [2021] NSWSC 19

Chiu v Sheh [2021] NSWSC 19

Leave was granted because the admission operated for the plaintiff's benefit and therefore required leave, but the first defendant sufficiently explained for the purposes of the interlocutory motion that the admission was made accidentally through confusion or misapprehension; the case was not close to trial and withdrawal would cause little prejudice or delay; any asserted prejudice about the CMS assignment was neutralised or overstated; and the public interest in deciding the case on the true facts outweighed reliance on the admission.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings; Interlocutory Application Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, R 12.6 for Leave to Withdraw an Admission / Motion Dated 20 May 2020 Heard Before Final Hearing
Outcome
Leave granted to withdraw the admission; costs of the motion to be each party's costs in the proceedings unless a party sought a different costs order within 14 days.
Legal Topics
['withdrawal of Admissions' 'admissions in Pleadings' 'loan Agreement' 'prejudice From Withdrawal of Admission' 'client Privilege']
['civil Procedure' 'equity' 'contract' 'partnerships'] ['withdrawal of Admissions' 'admissions in Pleadings' 'loan Agreement' 'prejudice From Withdrawal of Admission' 'client Privilege']

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 Proceedings; Interlocutory Application Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, R 12.6 for Leave to Withdraw an Admission / Motion Dated 20 May 2020 Heard Before Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first defendant should be granted leave under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 12.6 to withdraw an admission made in his defence about a term of the alleged loan agreement.' 'Whether the first defendant gave a sufficient explanation that the admission was made by mistake, confusion or misunderstanding.' 'Whether withdrawal of the admission would cause prejudice to the plaintiff or the administration of justice.' 'Whether refusal of leave would cause the proceedings to be conducted on an artificial or false factual basis.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was granted because the admission operated for the plaintiff's benefit and therefore required leave, but the first defendant sufficiently explained for the purposes of the interlocutory motion that the admission was made accidentally through confusion or misapprehension; the case was not close to trial and withdrawal would cause little prejudice or delay; any asserted prejudice about the CMS assignment was neutralised or overstated; and the public interest in deciding the case on the true facts outweighed reliance on the admission.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to withdraw the admission; costs of the motion to be each party's costs in the proceedings unless a party sought a different costs order within 14 days.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to the first defendant to withdraw his admission of paragraph 4 of the Amended Statement of Claim, which withdrawal has been effected by means of paragraph 4 of the Defence to the Amended Statement of Claim.' "Otherwise dismiss the first defendant's motion dated 20 May 2020." "If no party activates the...