Broadlex Services v RCR Resolve FM - [2015] NSWSC 1367

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Broadlex Services v RCR Resolve FM [2015] NSWSC 1367
Hearing dates: 7 September 2015, 8 September 2015, 9 September 2015, 10 September and 11 September 2015
Decision date: 11 September 2015
Jurisdiction: Equity - Commercial List
Before: McDougall J
Decision:
Refuse leave to withdraw admission and to amend

Catchwords: INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS – application for leave to amend – where plaintiff admitted in its pleadings that a contract with the defendant had been formed from acceptance by conduct of a written offer – where it later sought to withdraw that admission and plead another mechanism of formation of the contract – application made after a four-day hearing – where defendant had no opportunity to muster evidence to meet the case sought to be put – where allowing the application so late in the day would not be just, quick or cheap – consequence of rejection of leave to withdraw the admission and to amend the pleadings
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Brambles Holdings Ltd v Bathurst City Council (2001) 53 NSWLR 153
Empirnall Holdings Pty Ltd v Machon Paull Partners Pty Ltd (1988) 14 NSWLR 523
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Broadlex Services Pty Ltd (Plaintiff / Cross-Defendant)
RCR Resolve FM Pty Ltd (Defendant / Cross-Claimant)
Representation:
Counsel:
R C Gration (Plaintiff / Cross-Defendant)
T J Breakspear (Defendant / Cross-Claimant)
Solicitors:
Johnson Winter & Slattery (Plaintiff / Cross-Defendant)
Kennedys (Defendant / Cross-Claimant)

File Number(s): 2014/69596

Judgment - (ex tempore – revised 11 september 2015)

Application by Plaintiff to withdraw an admission and amend pleadings; see transcript p 286

HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff (Broadlex) sues the defendant (Resolve) for about $241,000, owing under invoices rendered by Broadlex to Resolve for services supplied. Resolve admits that the services were supplied and that the invoices were duly rendered. The defence that Resolve propounds is, in fact, a defence by way of set off, which is amplified in a cross-claim.
Resolve contracted with Serco Australia Pty Ltd to provide facilities management services for Serco in relation to immigration detention centres and similar facilities throughout Australia. The contract between Broadlex and Resolve relates to one of those centres, the Villawood Immigration Detention Centre (VIDC). (The services relate also to an associated residential housing complex, but nothing turns on this.)
In its defence and its cross-claim, Resolve says that Broadlex failed to supply all the services that, contractually, it was bound to deliver under the contract between it and Resolve. It values those omitted services at about $674,000. In addition, Resolve says that Broadlex did not perform its services properly and that, as a result, Serco "abated" moneys otherwise owing to Resolve. Resolve says that it is entitled to recover the abated amount, about $266,000, in addition to the value of the omitted services.
The pleading of the contract between Broadlex and Resolve is somewhat confusing. As pleaded in the amended statement of claim filed by Broadlex, the contract is said to have been…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Broadlex Services v RCR Resolve FM

Details

AGLC: Broadlex Services v RCR Resolve FM [2015] NSWSC 1367
Case: [2015] NSWSC 1367
Decision Date: 11 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Broadlex Services sought leave to amend its pleadings in the Federal Court of Australia after admitting that a contract had been formed from the defendant's acceptance by conduct of a written offer. The defendant, RCR Resolve FM, opposed the application, arguing that allowing the amendment so late in the proceedings would not be just, quick or cheap. The plaintiff's application was made after a four-day hearing, leaving the defendant without the opportunity to gather evidence to counter the new case being presented.

The central legal issue was whether the plaintiff should be permitted to withdraw its admission of a specific contract formation mechanism and instead plead an alternative mechanism. The court had to consider the principles of justice, expeditiousness and cost-effectiveness in deciding whether to grant leave to amend. The plaintiff argued that the amendment was necessary to properly plead its case, while the defendant contended that permitting the amendment would result in unfairness and inefficiency.

The court held that allowing the plaintiff to withdraw its admission and amend the pleadings would not be just, quick or cheap. It found that the amendment was made after a significant hearing had already taken place, depriving the defendant of the opportunity to prepare a response to the new case. The court considered that the amendment would lead to further delay, expense and complexity in an already protracted case. Consequently, the court rejected the application for leave to amend the pleadings, affirming the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.

The court did not make any orders in relation to the amendment, leaving the plaintiff's admission of contract formation by conduct intact. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to the principles of justice, expeditiousness and cost-effectiveness in the conduct of litigation, particularly in cases where significant hearings have already taken place.

Orders