Sam McCarthy (with PL O’Shea KC) appeared for the plaintiff, instructed by the Lamont Project and Construction Lawyers.
Bianca Kabel appeared for the first defendant, instructed by Ashurst Australia.
The judgment concerned previous applications made by the plaintiff and first defendant regarding contentious amendments filed by the plaintiff. Both applications raised the issue of leave to amend to introduce a statute-barred cause of action under r 376(4) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR) but was ultimately granted, subject to the right of the first defendant to bring any application to disallow the amendments. The issue remains of the date on which the contentious amendments should take effect against the first defendant.
The central issues considered were whether the plaintiff delayed in making the contentious amendments against the first defendant; if so, whether the plaintiff had adequately explained such delay; and whether the first defendant would be unduly prejudiced if the contentious amendments were to take effect from the commencement of the proceedings,
The Court found that the time taken by the plaintiff to file the contentious amendments did not constitute unexplained delay. The Court also held that the first defendant would not be unduly prejudiced if the contentious amendments are to take effect from the commencement of the proceedings nor would it inappropriately undermine the rationales for the imposition of limitation periods as the Court was satisfied that a fair trial could occur. The Court granted relief sought on the plaintiff’s application and dismissed the first defendant’s application.
The judgment can be read by clicking here
