Azmin Firoz Daya v CX Reinsurance Company Limited [2012] NSWSC 1620

Azmin Firoz Daya v CX Reinsurance Company Limited [2012] NSWSC 1620

Leave to amend was granted as there was sufficient evidence that the relevant admission was arguably incorrectly made, the matter was complex and documentary-based, and any prejudice to the defendants could be addressed by permitting consequential amendments and further evidence.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Plaintiff: Azmin Firoz Daya; First Defendant: CX Reinsurance Company Ltd (formerly CNA Reinsurance Ltd); Second Defendant: GE Frankona Reinsurance Ltd (formerly Eagle Star Reinsurance Company Ltd); Third Defendant: Aviva Plc (formerly General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp plc); Fourth Defendant: Certain Underwriters at Lloyds (Contract No ENCDOPR98); Fifth Defendant: Royal & Sun Alliance plc; Sixth Defendant: Certain Underwriters at Lloyds (Contract No ENCDOX598); Seventh Defendant: International Insurance Company of Hannover Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Corporations List (equity Division) / Procedural Ruling on Leave to Amend Pleadings
Outcome
Leave to amend pleadings granted
Legal Topics
Leave to Amend Pleadings, Withdrawal of Admissions
Civil Procedure Leave to Amend Pleadings Withdrawal of Admissions

Source-derived case record

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Azmin Firoz Daya

Plaintiff

CX Reinsurance Company Ltd (formerly CNA Reinsurance Ltd)

First Defendant

GE Frankona Reinsurance Ltd (formerly Eagle Star Reinsurance Company Ltd)

Second Defendant

Aviva Plc (formerly General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp plc)

Third Defendant

Certain Underwriters at Lloyds (Contract No ENCDOPR98)

Fourth Defendant

Royal & Sun Alliance plc

Fifth Defendant

Certain Underwriters at Lloyds (Contract No ENCDOX598)

Sixth Defendant

International Insurance Company of Hannover Ltd

Seventh Defendant

Procedural Posture

Corporations List (equity Division) / Procedural Ruling on Leave to Amend Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend the Reply by withdrawing an admission and making new admissions/non-admissions

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend was granted as there was sufficient evidence that the relevant admission was arguably incorrectly made, the matter was complex and documentary-based, and any prejudice to the defendants could be addressed by permitting consequential amendments and further evidence.

Court Disposition

Leave to amend pleadings granted

Orders

  • Leave granted to the plaintiff to amend the Reply in the form of the Amended Reply provided to the court.
  • Leave granted to the plaintiff to withdraw the admission in paragraph 12 of the Reply, subject to particularisation of the position regarding paragraph 34(c).