Brooks, Jodi-Anne v Pharmacia & Upjohn (Formerly Known as the Upjohn Co) & Ors [1998] FCA 1302

Brooks, Jodi-Anne v Pharmacia & Upjohn (Formerly Known as the Upjohn Co) & Ors [1998] FCA 1302

Paragraph 6 of the Third Amended Statement of Claim referred to the injections administered to the applicant during April and May 1990, and the places where they were given and the identities of those who gave them were not material to the case against the first and second respondents. The proposed amendments therefore arose out of substantially the same material facts already pleaded and were not time barred under O 13 r 2(7). Although the application was very late and caused cost and inconvenience, the applicant's solicitors' conduct reflected genuine error rather than bad faith, and the prejudice to the first and second respondents was capable of remedy. Leave to amend was therefore...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 October 1998
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Motion for Leave to Amend Pleadings / Reasons for Interlocutory Judgment on Applicant's Motion to File a Fourth Further Amended Statement of Claim on the Eve of Trial
Outcome
The applicant was granted leave to amend in terms of the Fourth Further Amended Statement of Claim.
Legal Topics
['amendment of Pleadings' 'limitation Periods' 'prejudice From Late Amendment' 'federal Court Rules O 13 R 2']
['practice and Procedure' 'civil Procedure'] ['amendment of Pleadings' 'limitation Periods' 'prejudice From Late Amendment' 'federal Court Rules O 13 R 2']

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

Interlocutory Motion for Leave to Amend Pleadings / Reasons for Interlocutory Judgment on Applicant's Motion to File a Fourth Further Amended Statement of Claim on the Eve of Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed amendments introduced new facts and new causes of action that were time barred.' 'Whether the proposed amendments arose out of the same facts or substantially the same facts as those already pleaded.' 'Whether leave to amend should be refused because prejudice to the first and second respondents could not be relieved.']

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraph 6 of the Third Amended Statement of Claim referred to the injections administered to the applicant during April and May 1990, and the places where they were given and the identities of those who gave them were not material to the case against the first and second respondents. The proposed amendments therefore arose out of substantially the same material facts already pleaded and were not time barred under O 13 r 2(7). Although the application was very late and caused cost and inconvenience, the applicant's solicitors' conduct reflected genuine error rather than bad faith, and the prejudice to the first and second respondents was capable of remedy. Leave to amend was therefore...

Court Disposition

The applicant was granted leave to amend in terms of the Fourth Further Amended Statement of Claim.

Orders

  • ['The applicant be granted leave to file its Fourth Further Amended Statement of Claim.']