NM Rural Enterprises Pty Ltd v Rimanui Farms Limited [2010] NSWSC 969

NM Rural Enterprises Pty Ltd v Rimanui Farms Limited [2010] NSWSC 969

Leave to withdraw the admissions was refused because Rimanui and Gil Gil did not provide an adequate explanation of a solid and substantial character for why the admissions were made or maintained, did not establish that the admissions were contrary to the actual facts, and sought withdrawal after extreme delay in circumstances where the admissions had been formal, deliberate and longstanding and where withdrawal would cause significant procedural and forensic prejudice to the plaintiff in proving causation and responsibility for the alleged spray drift damage.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Ruling Concerning Withdrawal of Admissions in Defences / Notices of Motion by the First and Second Defendants Seeking Leave to Withdraw Admissions During a Hearing
Outcome
The notices of motion filed by the first and second defendants seeking leave to withdraw admissions were dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['ucpr 12.6' 'admissions in Pleadings' 'withdrawal of Admissions' 'leave of the Court' 'pleading Amendments' 'delay' 'prejudice' 'case Management']
['practice and Procedure' 'civil Procedure'] ['ucpr 12.6' 'admissions in Pleadings' 'withdrawal of Admissions' 'leave of the Court' 'pleading Amendments' 'delay' 'prejudice' 'case Management']

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

Procedural and Other Ruling Concerning Withdrawal of Admissions in Defences / Notices of Motion by the First and Second Defendants Seeking Leave to Withdraw Admissions During a Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the first and second defendants should be granted leave to withdraw admissions that they jointly contracted with Gwydir Air Charter Pty Ltd for aerial spraying on the plaintiff's land." 'Whether the proposed withdrawal was necessary to expose the real issues in dispute or merely to alter issues already defined by the pleadings.' 'Whether the admissions were shown to be contrary to the actual facts, made inadvertently, or made without due consideration of material matters.' 'Whether delay and actual or presumptive prejudice to the plaintiff justified refusing leave.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to withdraw the admissions was refused because Rimanui and Gil Gil did not provide an adequate explanation of a solid and substantial character for why the admissions were made or maintained, did not establish that the admissions were contrary to the actual facts, and sought withdrawal after extreme delay in circumstances where the admissions had been formal, deliberate and longstanding and where withdrawal would cause significant procedural and forensic prejudice to the plaintiff in proving causation and responsibility for the alleged spray drift damage.

Court Disposition

The notices of motion filed by the first and second defendants seeking leave to withdraw admissions were dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion filed by Rimanui Farms Limited seeking leave to withdraw the admission made in paragraph 10 of its defence filed 9 November 2006 to the amended statement of claim filed 26 September 2006 is dismissed with costs.' 'The notice of motion filed by Gil Gil Farming Pty Ltd seeking leave to withdraw...