Cargill Australia Limited v Viterra Malt Pty Ltd (No 18)

In the matter of Cargill Australia Limited v Viterra Malt Pty Ltd, the plaintiff sought damages for losses resulting from alleged defective grain supplied by the defendant. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issue before the court was whether leave should be granted to the defendant to amend its defence during the trial, despite the fact that the issues sought to be pleaded were the subject of both the parties' openings and evidence presented. Another issue was whether expert evidence presented by the defendant should be excluded due to relevance concerns, as the issue had not been raised in the pleadings.

The court examined the relevant procedural rules and statutes, including the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) and the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic). The court noted that while the defendant's proposed amendments to the defence related to matters that had been addressed in the trial, there was no allegation of prejudice to the plaintiff if leave was granted. The court also found that the expert evidence was relevant and should not be excluded, as the plaintiff did not allege any prejudice arising from the timing of the evidence. Accordingly, the court granted the defendant's application for leave to amend its defence in part, subject to the provision of proper particulars. The court further held that the expert evidence should be admitted.

The court's decision demonstrates a pragmatic approach to the amendment of pleadings during trial, balancing the need for procedural fairness with the potential for prejudice to the opposing party. The court's analysis of the relevant rules and statutes provides guidance for practitioners navigating similar issues in future cases. The final orders of the court are not detailed in the text provided.