Carswell v KBRV Resort Operations Pty Ltd (No 2)

In Carswell v KBRV Resort Operations Pty Ltd (No 2), the plaintiff, Carswell, was suing the defendant, KBRV Resort Operations Pty Ltd, for injuries sustained at work. The defendant's initial defence did not admit to the plaintiff's injuries. The plaintiff disclosed surveillance and medical evidence on the first day of trial, which the defendant's amended defence did not address. Two paragraphs of the further amended defence were struck out, and the defendant sought leave to amend the defence further. The court had to determine whether the proposed amendments complied with the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 and whether the defendant had always put the substance of the plaintiff's claims in issue. The court also had to consider whether the amendments would enable the defendant to lead a positive case it could not have done under the earlier versions of the pleadings, whether the defendant had indicated what evidence it might seek to lead if the amendments were granted, and whether the plaintiff would suffer prejudice.

The court considered Dr Richardson's report, which stated that the plaintiff's psychiatric condition was secondary to his primary back injury and that further treatment was unlikely to assist. The court noted that Rule 380 UCPR provides for a wide discretion in granting leave to amend pleadings and that a just resolution of proceedings remains the paramount purpose of the rule. The court also referred to Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University, which emphasised the importance of speed, efficiency, and minimising costs while allowing parties to plead their case properly. The court concluded that the defendant's proposed amendments did not comply with the rules and that granting leave to amend would result in significant delay and prejudice to the plaintiff.

The court dismissed the application to amend the defence, finding that the defendant had not demonstrated that the amendments were necessary to enable it to lead a positive case or that the plaintiff would not suffer prejudice. The court noted that the defendant had not indicated what evidence it might seek to lead if the amendments were granted and that the proposed amendments would result in significant delay and prejudice to the plaintiff. The court held that the defendant had had sufficient opportunity to plead its case and that it was too late for a further amendment.

The court made no orders for costs.