Body Corporate for Ocean Pacifique CTS 8379 v Body Corporate for Orchid 17 CTS 11906

The case of Body Corporate for Ocean Pacifique CTS 8379 v Body Corporate for Orchid 17 CTS 11906 was heard in the Supreme Court. The parties involved are two bodies corporate of neighbouring properties. The applicant, Body Corporate for Ocean Pacifique, sought damages for alleged negligence and nuisance caused by water and contaminated material that it claimed leaked from the respondent's property into theirs. The trial was scheduled to start within two weeks, and the applicant sought leave to amend its statement of claim to include additional allegations that the damage was due to the respondent permitting kitchen waste to be washed into a stormwater pit, that the stormwater system and grease trap on the respondent’s property did not comply with relevant standards and regulations, and that this non-compliance constituted a breach of duty or created a nuisance.

The court was required to determine whether leave should be granted for the applicant to amend its statement of claim and what costs orders should follow if leave was granted. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that the applicant had not adequately explained the reason for the late amendments, that the proposed amendments were futile as the new claims had no prospect of success, and that certain material facts had not been pleaded. The court assessed the merits of the application based on the necessity to ensure a fair and just resolution of the dispute.

The court granted the applicant leave to amend its statement of claim to include the allegations about kitchen waste but refused leave to plead the non-compliance allegations. The court found that the form of the proposed pleading for the non-compliance allegations was deficient as it failed to identify the specific works required to rectify the alleged non-compliances or the reasonable steps the respondent should have taken to ensure compliance. As a result, the proposed case on causation arising from the non-compliance allegations was also found to be deficient.

The court ordered that the applicant could file a second further amended statement of claim by a specified date, limited to the amendments that were properly pleaded. The respondent was granted leave to file an amended defence and the applicant to file a reply, with both parties required to provide any further disclosure by a specified date. The costs of the interlocutory application were to be borne by each party, and the applicant was to pay the respondent’s costs thrown away due to the amendments in the second further amended statement of claim, to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.