Clo Developments Pty Ltd v Sarv Pty Ltd

The plaintiff, Clo Developments Pty Ltd, sued the first defendant, Sarv Pty Ltd, for misleading conduct relating to infrastructure charges for property covered by a contract between the parties. Sarv Pty Ltd subsequently brought proceedings against the first, second, and third defendants, alleging misrepresentations by them regarding infrastructure charges. These third defendants then sued the Gold Coast City Council, alleging misrepresentations about infrastructure charges. The Council's defence to the third defendants' claim included deemed admissions about some representations relating to infrastructure charges. However, evidence suggested that the Council's defence intended to deny these representations, and the deemed admissions arose from inadvertence. The particulars of the representations deemed to be admitted led to a range of possibilities, and it was uncertain which would be relied upon at trial. Some representations were plainly contested, while others were not accepted. The Council sought leave to withdraw the deemed admissions.

The central legal issue was whether the Council should be granted leave to withdraw the deemed admissions. The court considered the appropriate exercise of discretion under Rule 188 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999. The court held that the deemed admissions were inadvertently made, and the Council's defence clearly intended to deny the representations. Furthermore, the particulars of the representations were ambiguous, leading to uncertainty about which representations would be relied upon at trial. Given these factors, the court concluded that it was appropriate to grant the Council leave to withdraw the deemed admissions.

In light of the above, the court granted the fourth party leave to withdraw the deemed admissions in paragraphs 5 and 8 of the defence. The court also ordered the fourth party to pay the costs of the first, second, and third parties for the application, to be assessed on the standard basis. The court considered the inadvertent nature of the deemed admissions, the Council's clear intention to deny the representations, and the ambiguity in the particulars of the representations. These factors justified the exercise of discretion in favour of allowing the withdrawal of the deemed admissions.