Gilmore Finance Pty Ltd v Aesthete Pty Ltd atf the Real Money Unit Trust [2022] NSWSC 311

Gilmore Finance Pty Ltd v Aesthete Pty Ltd atf the Real Money Unit Trust [2022] NSWSC 311

Leave to amend was granted only for the changes to the chapeau to paragraph 15, paragraph 15(a), and particular 15(b)(iv), because those amendments were either not opposed or related to a document discovered only in the last few days. The remaining proposed amendments were refused because they relied on evidence that had been available to the plaintiff for months or longer, no adequate explanation for the delay was given, and the defendants should not have to face the implications of those amendments part-way through the hearing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Equity Commercial List; Procedural Ruling on Plaintiff's Notice of Motion for Leave to Amend Commercial List Statement / Fourth Day of a Seven Day Plus Hearing, After Plaintiff's Lay Evidence Had Concluded
Outcome
Leave granted to amend List Statement in limited respects; otherwise the motion was dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Amend Commercial List Statement' 'late Amendment During Hearing' 'discovery' 'prejudice to Defendants' 'costs']
['practice and Procedure'] ['leave to Amend Commercial List Statement' 'late Amendment During Hearing' 'discovery' 'prejudice to Defendants' 'costs']

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; Procedural Ruling on Plaintiff's Notice of Motion for Leave to Amend Commercial List Statement / Fourth Day of a Seven Day Plus Hearing, After Plaintiff's Lay Evidence Had Concluded

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend its Commercial List Statement on the third and fourth days of the hearing.' 'Whether the proposed amendments were based on material available to the plaintiff for some time or on material recently discovered.' 'Whether the defendants would be prejudiced by the proposed amendments at that stage of the proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend was granted only for the changes to the chapeau to paragraph 15, paragraph 15(a), and particular 15(b)(iv), because those amendments were either not opposed or related to a document discovered only in the last few days. The remaining proposed amendments were refused because they relied on evidence that had been available to the plaintiff for months or longer, no adequate explanation for the delay was given, and the defendants should not have to face the implications of those amendments part-way through the hearing.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to amend List Statement in limited respects; otherwise the motion was dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The plaintiff may amend the List Statement by adding the change proposed in the chapeau to par 15, the change proposed in par 15(a), and particular (iv) in MFI-10 to those already appearing in relation to par 15(b).' 'Otherwise, the motion is dismissed with costs.']