EC Dawson Investments Pty Ltd v Crystal Finance Pty Ltd [No 2]

EC Dawson Investments Pty Ltd (the plaintiff) brought an action against Crystal Finance Pty Ltd (the defendant) in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The plaintiff sought to recover a sum of money under a loan agreement and for various other claims. The defendant filed a defence, which was subsequently amended and further re-amended. The plaintiff applied to strike out the further re-amended defence on the ground that it withdrew previous admissions. The central legal issue was whether the further re-amended defence constituted a withdrawal of admissions and, if so, whether the court should permit this withdrawal. The court considered the principles established in Water Corporation v Cardno BSD Pty Ltd and other relevant cases. It found that while the court has broad discretion to permit or refuse an amendment that withdraws an admission, it is a serious matter to make such an admission. The court must weigh various factors, including the circumstances in which the admission was made, the reason for its withdrawal, the significance of the admission, the time it has stood on the record, and any prejudice to the other side. The court also noted the importance of the timely and efficient resolution of legal proceedings and the effective use of court resources. In this case, the court found that the procedural history indicated that the issues raised by the further re-amended defence were not new but had been identified by the defendant since late 2009. Therefore, the court was not persuaded that the withdrawal of the admissions was unjust in the circumstances. The application to strike out the further re-amended defence was dismissed.