Darcy v Medtel Pty Limited (No 3)

In the case of Darcy v Medtel Pty Limited (No 3), the applicant sought leave to amend their pleadings to introduce new claims regarding the respondents' record keeping and the scope of the Hazard Alert. The proposed amendments introduced a claim based on the inadequacy of the respondents’ record keeping as well as challenging the manner in which the respondents determined the scope of the Hazard Alert. This contrasts with the existing claims, which are founded on the alleged quality of the Hazard Alert Pacemakers as measured by their risk profile.

The legal issues before the court were whether the proposed amendments introduced new claims that arose out of the same or substantially the same facts as the existing claims and whether the amendments were made within the relevant period of limitation. The court held that the proposed amendments did not introduce new claims but rather elaborated on the existing allegations. Furthermore, the court found that the amendments were made within the relevant period of limitation.

The court granted leave to the applicant to amend the pleadings by filing a third amended application and a third amended statement of claim in the form annexed to the amended motion filed on 5 May 2004. The costs of the motion were to be costs in the cause.