Leica Geosystems Pty Ltd v Koudstaal (No 2) [2013] FCA 722

Leica Geosystems Pty Ltd v Koudstaal (No 2) [2013] FCA 722

Leave to amend was granted because the proposed pleading raised a serious and important additional claim supported by evidence relevant to an alleged separate reproduction of the jmineops_acd.bak file on 27 January 2012; the applicants only became aware that it was a potential issue after affidavits filed within the preceding three weeks, so there was no improper delay; any prejudice to the respondents could be addressed by allowing time to respond and by the inevitable adjournment and later resumption of the trial; case management concerns were not significant; and costs were adequate compensation for the respondents' ill-effects.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Leave to Amend Statement of Claim / First Day of a Four Day Trial
Outcome
Leave to amend granted; applicants ordered to pay the respondents' costs thrown away by the amendments.
Legal Topics
['leave to Amend Pleadings' 'late Amendment at Trial' 'case Management' 'costs Thrown Away' 'alleged Reproduction of Source Code']
['practice and Procedure' 'intellectual Property' 'confidential Information' 'employment'] ['leave to Amend Pleadings' 'late Amendment at Trial' 'case Management' 'costs Thrown Away' 'alleged Reproduction of Source Code']

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 Application for Leave to Amend Statement of Claim / First Day of a Four Day Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants should have leave on the first day of trial to amend paragraph 22 of the Second Further Amended Statement of Claim to allege that on 27 January 2012 the first respondent created a reproduction of the jmineops_acd.bak file.' 'Whether the proposed amendment would cause prejudice to the respondents, including by requiring further expert evidence, such that leave should be refused.' 'Whether any delay by the applicants in seeking the amendment was adequately explained.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend was granted because the proposed pleading raised a serious and important additional claim supported by evidence relevant to an alleged separate reproduction of the jmineops_acd.bak file on 27 January 2012; the applicants only became aware that it was a potential issue after affidavits filed within the preceding three weeks, so there was no improper delay; any prejudice to the respondents could be addressed by allowing time to respond and by the inevitable adjournment and later resumption of the trial; case management concerns were not significant; and costs were adequate compensation for the respondents' ill-effects.

Court Disposition

Leave to amend granted; applicants ordered to pay the respondents' costs thrown away by the amendments.

Orders

  • ['The applicants have leave to file a Third Further Amended Statement of Claim in the form marked as exhibit 5(A) in this proceeding, with tracked changes accepted.' 'By 12 pm on 24 July 2013 the respondents file copies of their respective Defences, with tracked changes accepted.' 'The respondents have leave to file...