Lumina BPO Pty Limited v ELB Pty Ltd [2020] NSWDC 710

Lumina BPO Pty Limited v ELB Pty Ltd [2020] NSWDC 710

Leave to amend was refused because the application was made very late during final submissions, the proposed amendment raised new matters that could require further evidence on the plaintiff's proposed answers of conventional estoppel and waiver, allowing it would likely prolong or adjourn the proceedings and risk disproportionate costs, and the defendant maintained the amendment may be unnecessary despite saying the point was central to its case.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Defendant's Application for Leave to Amend Defence During Final Submissions
Outcome
Application for leave to amend defence is refused.
Legal Topics
['amendment of Defence' 'late Application for Amendment' 'further Evidence' 'adjournment' 'costs Proportionality']
['civil Procedure' 'pleadings'] ['amendment of Defence' 'late Application for Amendment' 'further Evidence' 'adjournment' 'costs Proportionality']

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

Civil / Defendant's Application for Leave to Amend Defence During Final Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant should be granted leave during final submissions to file a Further Amended Defence adding allegations that completion of the tasks was an entire, indivisible obligation and that payment depended on all tasks being completed.' 'Whether granting leave would unfairly require the plaintiff to adduce further evidence in response, including on conventional estoppel and waiver.' 'Whether the lateness and likely prolongation of the proceedings justified refusal of leave.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend was refused because the application was made very late during final submissions, the proposed amendment raised new matters that could require further evidence on the plaintiff's proposed answers of conventional estoppel and waiver, allowing it would likely prolong or adjourn the proceedings and risk disproportionate costs, and the defendant maintained the amendment may be unnecessary despite saying the point was central to its case.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to amend defence is refused.

Orders

  • ['Leave to file a Further Amended Defence is refused.']