Silver v Dome Resources NL [2005] NSWSC 265

Silver v Dome Resources NL [2005] NSWSC 265

The application by the defendants to withdraw their admission was refused because the admission was made after due consideration, for tactical reasons, and its withdrawal would prejudice the plaintiffs in obtaining necessary evidence at a late stage; this prejudice could not be cured by a costs order. As the plaintiffs chose not to persist with their amendment to introduce new representations, the defendants' application for withdrawal was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings / Interlocutory Application Regarding Amendment of Pleadings and Withdrawal of Admission
Outcome
Leave to withdraw admission in defence refused.
Legal Topics
['withdrawal of Admissions' 'supreme Court Procedure' 'practice Under Supreme Court Rules']
['civil Procedure'] ['withdrawal of Admissions' 'supreme Court Procedure' 'practice Under Supreme Court Rules']

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 Proceedings / Interlocutory Application Regarding Amendment of Pleadings and Withdrawal of Admission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether defendants should be granted leave to withdraw an admission in their defence' 'Whether plaintiffs should be permitted to amend their statement of claim to include new representations under s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)']

Ratio Decidendi

The application by the defendants to withdraw their admission was refused because the admission was made after due consideration, for tactical reasons, and its withdrawal would prejudice the plaintiffs in obtaining necessary evidence at a late stage; this prejudice could not be cured by a costs order. As the plaintiffs chose not to persist with their amendment to introduce new representations, the defendants' application for withdrawal was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to withdraw admission in defence refused.

Orders

  • ['Plaintiffs granted leave to file amended statement of claim omitting the proposed new representations (paragraphs 53A-56A, prayer 11A).' "Defendants' application for leave to withdraw the admission refused." 'Parties to bring forward formal versions of amended pleadings in accordance with the ruling.']