NM Rural Enterprises Pty Ltd v Rimanui Farms Limited [2010] NSWSC 968

NM Rural Enterprises Pty Ltd v Rimanui Farms Limited [2010] NSWSC 968

The proposed contention was not a matter requiring specific pleading under UCPR 14.14(2) because, in the circumstances, it ought not to take the plaintiff by surprise. The possibility of on-farm aerial spraying causing the damage had been apparent from the factual material, including Ward's notes and the history of investigation, and all parties had access to the means of investigating it. In any event, paragraphs 21(e) and 63 of the third defendant's defence were sufficiently clear to authorise the evidence now proposed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Rulings / Application by Third Defendant to Cross Examine and Call Evidence on an Issue Not Specifically Referred to in Its Defence During the Hearing
Outcome
Third defendant is permitted to call evidence upon which it proposes to rely.
Legal Topics
['ucpr 14.14(2)' 'matters to Be Pleaded Specifically' 'surprise' 'new Case' 'cross Examination' 'permission to Call Evidence']
['practice and Procedure' 'civil Procedure' 'pleadings'] ['ucpr 14.14(2)' 'matters to Be Pleaded Specifically' 'surprise' 'new Case' 'cross Examination' 'permission to Call Evidence']

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 Rulings / Application by Third Defendant to Cross Examine and Call Evidence on an Issue Not Specifically Referred to in Its Defence During the Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the third defendant's contention that Pay's Air inadvertently loaded glyphosate instead of Microsol and thereby caused the crop damage was a new case that had to be specifically pleaded under UCPR 14.14(2)." 'Whether the plaintiff would be taken by surprise if the third defendant were permitted to cross-examine and call evidence about that contention.' "Whether paragraphs 21(e) and 63 of the third defendant's defence were sufficient to authorise the evidence and argument proposed by the third defendant."]

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed contention was not a matter requiring specific pleading under UCPR 14.14(2) because, in the circumstances, it ought not to take the plaintiff by surprise. The possibility of on-farm aerial spraying causing the damage had been apparent from the factual material, including Ward's notes and the history of investigation, and all parties had access to the means of investigating it. In any event, paragraphs 21(e) and 63 of the third defendant's defence were sufficiently clear to authorise the evidence now proposed.

Court Disposition

Third defendant is permitted to call evidence upon which it proposes to rely.

Orders

  • ["The third defendant is permitted to call evidence in support of the contention that the damage to the plaintiff's cotton crops and part of the sorghum may have been caused by the inadvertent loading of glyphosate into Pay's Air aircraft VH-LIU on 23 November 2000." "The costs of the third defendant's application...