Credit Solutions Group Pty Ltd v Obelisk Ventures Pty Limited (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 1354

Credit Solutions Group Pty Ltd v Obelisk Ventures Pty Limited (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 1354

The defendants were entitled to withdraw the admissions because the admissions could not be said to have been made after consideration and advice and after a full opportunity to consider their case; the matter had not been set down for trial and the plaintiff's case was defective in its current form. Leave to file a further amended defence was granted except as stated in the orders. The caveat amendment was refused because a caveat is not an interest in land but a device to protect an existing interest. The pleading in paragraph [42(2)(g)] was one factor particularising unconscionable conduct and was allowed, although the proposed amendments were described as arguable but weak.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Common Law; Procedural and Other Ruling / Notice of Motion by the First to Third Defendants for Leave to Withdraw Admissions and File a Further Amended Defence
Outcome
The first to third defendants were granted leave to withdraw admissions and, subject to exceptions, to file and serve a further amended defence within 14 days; costs were reserved.
Legal Topics
['leave to Withdraw Admissions' 'leave to Amend Defence' 'execution Under S 127 of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth)' 'caveats' 'unconscionable Conduct Pleading']
['practice and Procedure' 'corporations Law' 'contract Law'] ['leave to Withdraw Admissions' 'leave to Amend Defence' 'execution Under S 127 of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth)' 'caveats' 'unconscionable Conduct Pleading']

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

Common Law; Procedural and Other Ruling / Notice of Motion by the First to Third Defendants for Leave to Withdraw Admissions and File a Further Amended Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to the defendants to withdraw admissions made in the amended defence filed 16 May 2019.' 'Whether leave should be granted to the defendants to file and serve a further amended defence.' 'Whether the proposed pleading concerning the caveat should be permitted.' 'Whether paragraph [42(2)(g)] of the proposed amended defence was an inadequate pleading of unconscionable conduct.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants were entitled to withdraw the admissions because the admissions could not be said to have been made after consideration and advice and after a full opportunity to consider their case; the matter had not been set down for trial and the plaintiff's case was defective in its current form. Leave to file a further amended defence was granted except as stated in the orders. The caveat amendment was refused because a caveat is not an interest in land but a device to protect an existing interest. The pleading in paragraph [42(2)(g)] was one factor particularising unconscionable conduct and was allowed, although the proposed amendments were described as arguable but weak.

Court Disposition

The first to third defendants were granted leave to withdraw admissions and, subject to exceptions, to file and serve a further amended defence within 14 days; costs were reserved.

Orders

  • ['The defendants are granted leave to withdraw the admissions made in the amended defence filed 16 May 2019.' 'With the exception of proposed paragraphs [42] and [43] inclusive, leave is granted to the defendants to file and serve a further amended defence within 14 days.' 'Costs are reserved.']