Built Environs WA Pty Ltd v Perth Airport Pty Ltd [No 3]

The Federal Court of Australia heard an application from Built Environs WA Pty Ltd against Perth Airport Pty Ltd regarding an application for leave to replead previously struck out pleas in a contract dispute. The plaintiff sought to amend its pleadings to address alleged breaches of contract, particularly in relation to general drawing deficiencies, which were claimed to have caused loss or detriment to the plaintiff. The defendants opposed the application on the basis that the proposed amendments were substantively insufficient, oppressively assembled, and would result in further delay, expense, and waste. The case management considerations of the court included the significant delay in bringing forward the amended pleas and the potential for further amendments in the future.

The legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff's proposed repleadings sufficiently detailed the material facts as to the alleged causative consequences of each drawing deficiency, and whether the proposed amendments would be oppressive to the defendants and wasteful of court resources. The court had to consider the adequacy of the proposed pleadings, the potential for further amendments, and the overall fairness and efficiency of the litigation process. The court also had to assess whether the proposed amendments would provide sufficient clarity and detail to allow the defendants to properly respond to the allegations and whether the potential for further amendments indicated an ongoing failure to properly particularise the claims.

The court found that the proposed repleadings were still insufficient in detail and oppressive in assembly. The plaintiff had not provided discrete pleas of breach or sufficiently particularised the material facts concerning the alleged causative consequences of each drawing deficiency. The court noted that the proposed amendments still referenced a schedule that was incomplete and potentially subject to further additions. The court was concerned about the ongoing delay and the potential for further repleadings, which would continue to burden the defendants and waste court resources. The court concluded that the proposed amendments did not meet the necessary standard for leave to be granted and that it was in the interests of justice to refuse leave to amend the previously struck out pleas. The court also decided that no further repleading attempts would be allowed on this aspect of the claim.

The court ordered that leave to amend the previously struck out pleas be refused and that no further repleading attempts would be permitted on this aspect of the claim. This decision underscored the importance of proper particularisation of claims and the need for plaintiffs to provide sufficient detail in their pleadings to allow defendants to properly respond. The court's decision also highlighted the significant case management considerations involved in deciding whether to allow repleadings, particularly in cases where there is a history of insufficient pleadings and potential for ongoing amendments.