Bassal v Savills (NSW) Pty Limited

The plaintiff, Bassal, brought a claim for damages against Savills (NSW) Pty Limited for alleged breaches of contract and tort. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Bassal sought to amend his statement of claim to add a new defendant, which would fundamentally alter the nature of the dispute. The court needed to determine whether allowing the amendment would be contrary to the interests of justice and whether it could be sustained on the evidence already presented. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the defendant would be unduly prejudiced by the proposed amendment.

The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether the proposed amendment to the statement of claim was permissible and whether it could be allowed without contravening the interests of justice. The court considered the principles governing amendments to pleadings and the potential impact of the proposed amendment on the defendant's right to a fair trial. The court examined the evidence already provided and whether it could support the inclusion of a new defendant. The court also evaluated whether the defendant would face undue prejudice if the amendment was allowed.

The Supreme Court held that the proposed amendment was not in the interests of justice. The court found that allowing the amendment would fundamentally alter the nature of the dispute and that the evidence did not support the inclusion of the new defendant. The court was concerned that permitting the amendment would cause significant prejudice to the defendant, who had not had the opportunity to respond to the new claims. The court concluded that the amendment would not be allowed as it would not be just to permit it given the circumstances.

The final orders of the court were that the application to amend the statement of claim was dismissed. The court ruled that the proposed amendment could not be sustained on the evidence and would be contrary to the interests of justice. The defendant's right to a fair trial and the integrity of the judicial process were upheld by denying the amendment.