Bridge v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd (No 2)

The plaintiff in this case, Bridge, sought damages for injuries sustained after falling and slipping in the car park of Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The defendant, Coles Supermarkets Australia, initially filed a defence denying liability. However, during the hearing, Coles sought leave to amend its defence, arguing that the additional matters were already covered by the existing pleadings and would not prejudice the plaintiff.

The court was required to determine whether the defendant was required to specifically plead the additional matters and whether the plaintiff would be prejudiced by the amendment. The court considered the relevant provisions of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, particularly rule 14.14(2), which sets out the circumstances in which leave to amend pleadings may be granted. The court also considered the principle that certain matters, such as the occupier's duty of care, must be specifically pleaded.

The court held that the matters sought to be added in the amended defence were not adequately covered by the existing pleadings and were required to be specifically pleaded. The court also held that the plaintiff would be prejudiced if the amendment was allowed, as it would effectively allow the defendant to raise new defences during the hearing. Therefore, the court refused leave to amend the defence. The court found that the matters to be specifically pleaded per UCPR r 14.14(2), and leave to amend was refused.